If I am Lombardi, in the halftime lockerroom (where I left off on August 1st), and speaking with my losing team that just had enough time on the clock to throw two Hail Mary's, and the first one was intercepted (where upon the opposite side {Dems}) then took a knee to run out the clock (twice because we did have one time out remaining when we hurled the ball to the two yardline) sending us into that lockerroom where we still had a real chance, then my speech would have gone something like this:
Ladies and Gentlemen, and the Rovian Sith Hordes, we are down, but not out by any means.
First, we have to decide are we a running game offense (ergo true Mavericks with a smash mouth offense), or a finesse team (ergo traditional divide and conquer partisan and identity politics), because at this point I am unsure if we can afford to do both.
The conventions are around the corner, and we have to make a smart pick for Veep... If we go smashmouth, true grit, honesty, leadership and the ability to speak our centrist truth to power I say lets get someone like Lieberman (how's his knee?) in there to lend true across the aisle credibility, an appeal to moderates and many conservatives, yet an ability to bark at the opposition on their terms. That would show 'em.
However, as confusing as that would be to the opponents, run play football is a hard way to have to catch up... lets get a guy who raised our game, kept us on our feet, and still has enough credibility on things we are weak in (like Economics) to make plays that pick apart defense... Romney.
Okay so heres the plan;
After the nomination, Romney you work the North West starting in every town in Utah in an ever expanding circular motion until you meet McCain at the end of his Viva la South tour (which starts in Florida, covers all of Dixie and then some, and meet up in Arizona). After Arizona for about a week we will reassess on where you are weakest, and let you do some joint appearances to rally huge crowds... after all we dont want you guys appearing at the same place all the time {oops}.
That said, a Veep Pick victory does not make...
Our key problem here has been message. We are trying to beat them at their game, trying to coopt that "Change" mantle. That doesnt work when weve been in Washington for over two decades and in power for a majority of that time.
Mmmm... lets see, oh yeah, our opponent is weak in experience. Rather than challenge (or appear to challenge) his patriotism, heritage, beliefs, or even to a lesser extent his philosophy (because lets get real our parties are still more or less two different sides of the same coin), lets instead hammer out a simple bumper sticker slogan (or two) that gets to the core....
Okay coach what do we have? (-offensive coordinator speaks-)
Great. Yeah, they have one word, so let us choose one word: Stability.
That will be all we need to do to reassure our conservative base who is a little squirrley that Romney didnt win, play neutral enough with moderates and independents, and if anything weird happens in the world, like God forbid a political crisis or economic crisis {puke}, we can be seen as above the fray in our stable bunker and hold tight to our consistent brand identity of "Stability." Also this wont offend the remaining two-hundred thousand people who believe in the current administration, yet allow us to make critiques freely of that administration should it handle such challenges poorly (but that hasnt happened, nor could it happen again {couldn't it?}).
Finally, defense (money and organization).
Team we need to really step it up. They have us on money, but organizationally, once we get our coalition with a bee in its bonnet-- we cant be beat!
It also strikes me that instead of rallying a get out the vote drive in only the last 72 hours may not be enough, so lets just start all our ground game stuff right on the heels of our convention.
All right, go out there and win one for the Gipper... no not George Gipp!
...of course I surely did not want this to become a competitive contest.
Showing posts with label Fallacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fallacy. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
Playing the "Hail Mary," for the Halftime Scoreboard
John McCain has stepped up some very negative imagery. No, not his stumbles, goofs, and foot-in-mouth whereby he shoots himself in the foot to barely escape suicide.... He is on the offense throwing some long bombs to the end zone, even though his team is down by just two touchdowns and its only a minute before half time.
The crowd likes the near misses, the forty yard sprint dashes, the stunt plays... but why open this up now?
Dont the Pubs usually keep their powder dry until the last quarter?
My theories:
(1) McCain is officially desperate. The Obama obsession in the MSM is like a shiny object flying in the sky. Even though its scary, they aren't sure what the UFO is, it is fascinating. Never mind that something like 70% of the coverage (of which he probably gets only 10 ~ 20% more coverage than McCain, and that McCain's coverage is about half positive/half negative) can be interpreted as neutral or even negative... kinda like, "will the aliens eat us when they land?" Or as McCain recently goofed his attempt to describe the example of loaded or begging question, 'when did you stop beating your wife?' In Obama's case there is a litany of viral and implied begging questions such as "why is he not a Muslim?" (For point of reference, not one word in the MSM about McCains free pass on his declaration on being a "Baptist.")
(2) McCain finally hired someone who gets the power of the new media, albeit a rather sinister disciple of Rove, or some other Sith Lord. By spending a million dollars on the production and airing of a local/regional yet ludicrous advertisement (not to be confused with a lude interlude by Ludacris on Obama's behalf), and then having the MSM pick up the loaded question, for instance "why isn't Obama like Brittany and Paris?" The ad dollar is stretched out very well.
As you can tell my cynicism and pure observation (intention is as intention does) informs me that it is more of the latter that has the QB for McCain's team airing out long bombs to the endzone in hopes of tiring out the backfield defense. But there are some problems with this strategy as well.
(a) McCain prima facae does indeed look desperate. As much as he has temporarily short circuited the dialogue betwixt the factions by begging the question, his questions are clearly inherent fallacies: Obama rejects my superficial Gas Tax Holiday, Tax Prices are rising, therefore Obama is responsible for gas prices; Obama is a celebrity, many celebrities today are vacant mental space, therefore there is something unsubstantial about Obama; and now we have Obama speaks with inspirational rhetoric, the bible is filled with inspirational rhetoric, therefore Obama thinks he is a biblical figure. These are all undistributed middle fallacies, with a touch of the ole straw man for good luck.
As you can see, McCain is fond of this illogic, and even made a DOUBLE UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE FALLACY; A. (Right wing) elite professors inhabit Hyde Park. B. Obama lives in Hyde Park. C. Obama is a Liberal Senator. Therefore, these (A) Elite are (C) Liberals, and (B) Obama is (A) Elite. Obama may be a Liberal who lives amongst Elitists, but that does not prove him an Elite. Also, Just because these (Right Wing) Elitists live in the same neighborhood as a Liberal Senator does not make them "liberal."
From a strictly logical point of view it seems McCain has conceded the high ground to Obama in terms of Logic.
(b) America loves violence and aggression. Problem is that you better believe it would be very very very easy to make a goofy old man highlight reel of McCain (and its pretty much been out there since March). The difference is that most of that anti-McCain stuff has been through surrogates. What is shocking that McCain would go so schoolyard dirty so very early. It can very easily come back to haunt him with an equal and parallel violence, only closer to election day.
(c) An expansion of that last point, if the debates were going to be a tough slog for McCain before, he now will have to stand there, grimmace, and repeat the lines from the commercials which are (i) illogical, (ii) lame, and (iii) will have been thoroughly hashed out by the time of the actual debate.
I believe the Pubs have fumbled in the greater context.
They have surrendered the high ground, and now accuse Obama of playing the race card to drag him down.
They have lost the battle of logic and persuasion by logical means, so they are now at name calling and spreading rumors.
McCain will have to have a stellar 97 days of quick wit, full thought, and reasonable temperament-- none of which he is particularly known for-- in order to regain these losses.
Dont forget that for every Hail Mary play that the DB's and Safeties have to run, so do your receivers, backs and line men.
Maybe this is McCain's last stand? If so expect murkier and uglier depictions of the straw man McCain thinks he is running against for POTUS.
BETTING LINE: Watch for Team Obama's rope-a-dope by the second debate where these chickens come home to roost.
The crowd likes the near misses, the forty yard sprint dashes, the stunt plays... but why open this up now?
Dont the Pubs usually keep their powder dry until the last quarter?
My theories:
(1) McCain is officially desperate. The Obama obsession in the MSM is like a shiny object flying in the sky. Even though its scary, they aren't sure what the UFO is, it is fascinating. Never mind that something like 70% of the coverage (of which he probably gets only 10 ~ 20% more coverage than McCain, and that McCain's coverage is about half positive/half negative) can be interpreted as neutral or even negative... kinda like, "will the aliens eat us when they land?" Or as McCain recently goofed his attempt to describe the example of loaded or begging question, 'when did you stop beating your wife?' In Obama's case there is a litany of viral and implied begging questions such as "why is he not a Muslim?" (For point of reference, not one word in the MSM about McCains free pass on his declaration on being a "Baptist.")
(2) McCain finally hired someone who gets the power of the new media, albeit a rather sinister disciple of Rove, or some other Sith Lord. By spending a million dollars on the production and airing of a local/regional yet ludicrous advertisement (not to be confused with a lude interlude by Ludacris on Obama's behalf), and then having the MSM pick up the loaded question, for instance "why isn't Obama like Brittany and Paris?" The ad dollar is stretched out very well.
As you can tell my cynicism and pure observation (intention is as intention does) informs me that it is more of the latter that has the QB for McCain's team airing out long bombs to the endzone in hopes of tiring out the backfield defense. But there are some problems with this strategy as well.
(a) McCain prima facae does indeed look desperate. As much as he has temporarily short circuited the dialogue betwixt the factions by begging the question, his questions are clearly inherent fallacies: Obama rejects my superficial Gas Tax Holiday, Tax Prices are rising, therefore Obama is responsible for gas prices; Obama is a celebrity, many celebrities today are vacant mental space, therefore there is something unsubstantial about Obama; and now we have Obama speaks with inspirational rhetoric, the bible is filled with inspirational rhetoric, therefore Obama thinks he is a biblical figure. These are all undistributed middle fallacies, with a touch of the ole straw man for good luck.
As you can see, McCain is fond of this illogic, and even made a DOUBLE UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE FALLACY; A. (Right wing) elite professors inhabit Hyde Park. B. Obama lives in Hyde Park. C. Obama is a Liberal Senator. Therefore, these (A) Elite are (C) Liberals, and (B) Obama is (A) Elite. Obama may be a Liberal who lives amongst Elitists, but that does not prove him an Elite. Also, Just because these (Right Wing) Elitists live in the same neighborhood as a Liberal Senator does not make them "liberal."
From a strictly logical point of view it seems McCain has conceded the high ground to Obama in terms of Logic.
(b) America loves violence and aggression. Problem is that you better believe it would be very very very easy to make a goofy old man highlight reel of McCain (and its pretty much been out there since March). The difference is that most of that anti-McCain stuff has been through surrogates. What is shocking that McCain would go so schoolyard dirty so very early. It can very easily come back to haunt him with an equal and parallel violence, only closer to election day.
(c) An expansion of that last point, if the debates were going to be a tough slog for McCain before, he now will have to stand there, grimmace, and repeat the lines from the commercials which are (i) illogical, (ii) lame, and (iii) will have been thoroughly hashed out by the time of the actual debate.
I believe the Pubs have fumbled in the greater context.
They have surrendered the high ground, and now accuse Obama of playing the race card to drag him down.
They have lost the battle of logic and persuasion by logical means, so they are now at name calling and spreading rumors.
McCain will have to have a stellar 97 days of quick wit, full thought, and reasonable temperament-- none of which he is particularly known for-- in order to regain these losses.
Dont forget that for every Hail Mary play that the DB's and Safeties have to run, so do your receivers, backs and line men.
Maybe this is McCain's last stand? If so expect murkier and uglier depictions of the straw man McCain thinks he is running against for POTUS.
BETTING LINE: Watch for Team Obama's rope-a-dope by the second debate where these chickens come home to roost.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Punting
Punt: A kick in which the ball is dropped from the hands and kicked before it touches the ground. What the Fed did this week.
Punt: Chiefly British Slang. To gamble. What has been happening to Oil and Gas futures.
Strong criticism today;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/27/cnbarclays127.xml
Echoing the RBS warning;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/18/cnrbs118.xml
Right or wrong there was no way the Fed would win. There has been a systematic abuse of the available market levers by the Fed (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article1429.html), aside from searching for and getting (http://www.mutualofamerica.com/articles/CapMan/March08/econperspec308.asp) more smoke or mirrors, they are attempting to get a couple of other tools; http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/06/19/afx5133293.html
If the Fed is a farmer, then it has water (interest rates) and fertilizer (government bonds). If the weather doesn't cooperate, then it is possible to have a bad crop. Expanding the metaphor, somewhere along the way people got confused and thought the central bank could control the weather.
Amidst all the other doom and gloom... We are officially in Lemming Tortoise Mode.
Allow me to elaborate. In markets, there is a herd mentality. Markets are in part or whole psychological, for instance, it is estimated the supply-demand quotient for a barrel of oil is actually about 70 ~ 75 $/bbl, as opposed to its market value of 140 ~ 150 $/bbl, or about 50%. In other words half the cost of oil is market psychology.
To get into some finer points, many would argue that only some of this psychological half is pure panic, fear, or irrationality, and they come up with ideas like "risk premium," as a fancy way of saying that the Nigerians and Venezuelans may stuff up the supply demand balance-- still fear to me, just slightly more fact based fear. Watch the Secretary General of OPEC deny the supply issue;
And just to assuage the markets the Saudis agreed (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Minister_Saudi_Arabia_can_increase_oil_0622.html) to yet again increase the supply of oil (no mind that USA refineries are at capacity). So what the hell is going on here?
One mans humble opinion (my speculation to the speculators) dont be the last batch of lemmings off the cliff. Speculators are driving the dark market for oil futures, creating scarcity of PAPER NOT OIL! Those last batch(es) of paper-buyers, whomever they may be or become, and this event may be gradual, or sudden, and may take a week, or a year, will be left covering the short on all those futures. The real price of oil has already pooled massive amounts of money to the big corporations for years and years.
Tortoise and the Hare.
Big money, real money, old money, and their followers who tend to also have large pools of money have long ago retreated from many segments of the market. Like lemmings they buy when the market is up, and sell when the market is down... When one goes they mostly all go, hence lemmings... and in spite of government adjusted numbers the smart money understands we are already in a technical recession;
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
The market is down, and most of the liquidity is Safely tucked away in secure issues with minimal risk... in one version of Tortoise Mode, or another.
In Tortoise Mode the banking families go into their wheel house and invest in banking, the real estate families start land banking, and the oil companies... (hate to paint individuals with the following broad and unsavory brush) well lets just say their presidency is coming to an un-sanctimonious end. This means for a limited time only, there is an opportunity to (a) get "no-bid" contracts from the government in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?hp); (b) run up the price for gas on the claim that gas prices are contingent upon oil prices, supply is tight for oil, and demand exceeds supply for gas; (c) not having to parry market forces, and this is evidenced by their well known and publicly traded record profits (and to any who would call themselves a true free-market capitalist I defy you to explain why the oil companies collectively haven't had to absorb the "production costs" of inflated prices for oil like any other producer in the open market [and by the way where is the competition {you know the gas company that charges less for lower quality gas, etc.}]); and (d) I speculate that there is a re-infusion of some of this massive capital into these dark oil markets that are unregulated, and will be until something is done to turn the light on in the kitchen and watch the cockroaches scurry: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/24/news/economy/oil_legislation/?postversion=2008062413
On this last point, it may take a month, but, probably, like the disappointing Supreme Court ruling against Exxon (where there was almost no punitive damages for the systemic criminal negligence in the Valdez spill), more like a decade or two to fully gather the facts and complete the prosecution of those traders and the speculators who are most probably buying a long call position, and then using some of their anticipated profits to pump up the market price... for the rest of those lemmings.
O, yes, real people, buying real options, in real markets, are making real money here because of this play (or series of plays). And I am totally in the dark from this humble vantage to guess as if this is just a perfect storm, coincidence, or any magnitude of conspiracy. And it doesn't matter. The laws are out of kilter, and I suggest we are witnessing the last act of a corrupt and powerful lobby that has had an administrations ear, which opened with the effusion of billions and billions of dollars from the California Economy in 2001 with the ENRON scandal.
Make your money while you can boys, because if you are the one holding those last call contracts for any penny over the real value of oil even one day after the market begins to correct itself (pending sanity, legislation, and possibly requisite a new administration).... well lets just say thats definitely something to worry about!
Punt: Chiefly British Slang. To gamble. What has been happening to Oil and Gas futures.
Strong criticism today;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/27/cnbarclays127.xml
Echoing the RBS warning;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/18/cnrbs118.xml
Right or wrong there was no way the Fed would win. There has been a systematic abuse of the available market levers by the Fed (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article1429.html), aside from searching for and getting (http://www.mutualofamerica.com/articles/CapMan/March08/econperspec308.asp) more smoke or mirrors, they are attempting to get a couple of other tools; http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/06/19/afx5133293.html
If the Fed is a farmer, then it has water (interest rates) and fertilizer (government bonds). If the weather doesn't cooperate, then it is possible to have a bad crop. Expanding the metaphor, somewhere along the way people got confused and thought the central bank could control the weather.
Amidst all the other doom and gloom... We are officially in Lemming Tortoise Mode.
Allow me to elaborate. In markets, there is a herd mentality. Markets are in part or whole psychological, for instance, it is estimated the supply-demand quotient for a barrel of oil is actually about 70 ~ 75 $/bbl, as opposed to its market value of 140 ~ 150 $/bbl, or about 50%. In other words half the cost of oil is market psychology.
To get into some finer points, many would argue that only some of this psychological half is pure panic, fear, or irrationality, and they come up with ideas like "risk premium," as a fancy way of saying that the Nigerians and Venezuelans may stuff up the supply demand balance-- still fear to me, just slightly more fact based fear. Watch the Secretary General of OPEC deny the supply issue;
And just to assuage the markets the Saudis agreed (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Minister_Saudi_Arabia_can_increase_oil_0622.html) to yet again increase the supply of oil (no mind that USA refineries are at capacity). So what the hell is going on here?
One mans humble opinion (my speculation to the speculators) dont be the last batch of lemmings off the cliff. Speculators are driving the dark market for oil futures, creating scarcity of PAPER NOT OIL! Those last batch(es) of paper-buyers, whomever they may be or become, and this event may be gradual, or sudden, and may take a week, or a year, will be left covering the short on all those futures. The real price of oil has already pooled massive amounts of money to the big corporations for years and years.
Tortoise and the Hare.
Big money, real money, old money, and their followers who tend to also have large pools of money have long ago retreated from many segments of the market. Like lemmings they buy when the market is up, and sell when the market is down... When one goes they mostly all go, hence lemmings... and in spite of government adjusted numbers the smart money understands we are already in a technical recession;
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
The market is down, and most of the liquidity is Safely tucked away in secure issues with minimal risk... in one version of Tortoise Mode, or another.
In Tortoise Mode the banking families go into their wheel house and invest in banking, the real estate families start land banking, and the oil companies... (hate to paint individuals with the following broad and unsavory brush) well lets just say their presidency is coming to an un-sanctimonious end. This means for a limited time only, there is an opportunity to (a) get "no-bid" contracts from the government in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?hp); (b) run up the price for gas on the claim that gas prices are contingent upon oil prices, supply is tight for oil, and demand exceeds supply for gas; (c) not having to parry market forces, and this is evidenced by their well known and publicly traded record profits (and to any who would call themselves a true free-market capitalist I defy you to explain why the oil companies collectively haven't had to absorb the "production costs" of inflated prices for oil like any other producer in the open market [and by the way where is the competition {you know the gas company that charges less for lower quality gas, etc.}]); and (d) I speculate that there is a re-infusion of some of this massive capital into these dark oil markets that are unregulated, and will be until something is done to turn the light on in the kitchen and watch the cockroaches scurry: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/24/news/economy/oil_legislation/?postversion=2008062413
On this last point, it may take a month, but, probably, like the disappointing Supreme Court ruling against Exxon (where there was almost no punitive damages for the systemic criminal negligence in the Valdez spill), more like a decade or two to fully gather the facts and complete the prosecution of those traders and the speculators who are most probably buying a long call position, and then using some of their anticipated profits to pump up the market price... for the rest of those lemmings.
O, yes, real people, buying real options, in real markets, are making real money here because of this play (or series of plays). And I am totally in the dark from this humble vantage to guess as if this is just a perfect storm, coincidence, or any magnitude of conspiracy. And it doesn't matter. The laws are out of kilter, and I suggest we are witnessing the last act of a corrupt and powerful lobby that has had an administrations ear, which opened with the effusion of billions and billions of dollars from the California Economy in 2001 with the ENRON scandal.
Make your money while you can boys, because if you are the one holding those last call contracts for any penny over the real value of oil even one day after the market begins to correct itself (pending sanity, legislation, and possibly requisite a new administration).... well lets just say thats definitely something to worry about!
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
McCain's Green Monster: Third Example (of American Logical Fallacy)
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/06/mccain_speech_starting_now_ful.html
(Comments in Parenthesis)
Good evening from the great city of New Orleans. (False – He was in Kenner) Tonight, we can say with confidence the primary season is over, and the general election campaign has begun. I commend both Senators Obama and Clinton for the long, hard race they have run. Senator Obama has impressed many Americans with his eloquence and his spirited campaign. Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. (Emotional Appeal) As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach. I am proud to call her my friend. Pundits and party elders have declared that Senator Obama will be my opponent. (Masked Man—Obama won, Party elders and Pundits have lauded him, therefore Obama won because of Party Elders and Pundits) He will be a formidable one. But I'm ready for the challenge, and determined to run this race in a way that does credit to our campaign and to the proud, decent and patriotic people I ask [sic?] to lead.
The decision facing Americans in this election couldn't be more important to the future security and prosperity of American families. This is, indeed, a change election. No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically. But, the choice is between the right change and the wrong change; between going forward and going backward. (Not a fallacy, but an attempt similar to the McCain’s new slogan [A Leader We Can Believe In –v- Change We Can Believe In {Obama}] to co-opt the message from his opponent so technically a Tu Quoque Implied)
America has seen tough times before. We've always known how to get through them. And we've always believed our best days are ahead of us. I believe that still. But we must rise to the occasion, as we always have; change what must be changed; and make the future better than the past.
The right change (Redefinition, the implication being his opponent advocates “an incorrect change”) recognizes that many of the policies and institutions of our government have failed. They have failed to keep up with the challenges of our time because many of these policies were designed for the problems and opportunities of the mid to late 20th Century, before the end of the Cold War; before the revolution in information technology and rise of the global economy. The right kind of change will initiate widespread and innovative reforms in almost every area of government policy -- health care, energy, the environment, the tax code, our public schools, our transportation system, disaster relief, government spending and regulation, diplomacy, the military and intelligence services. Serious and far-reaching reforms are needed in so many areas of government to meet our own challenges in our own time. (He has now defined “change” as many would perceive it, but again has attempted to link himself with the redefined “right,” which is also evocative to a political stance [versus “left,” or “liberal”])
The irony is that Americans have been experiencing a lot of change in their lives attributable to these historic events, and some of those changes have distressed many American families -- job loss, failing schools, prohibitively expensive health care, pensions at risk, entitlement programs approaching bankruptcy, rising gas and food prices, to name a few. But your government often acts as if it is completely unaware of the changes and hardships in your lives. (The irony is he has been a part of that Government!) And when government does take notice, often it only makes matters worse. (Appeal to Consequences—because things have been getting worse, and the government sometimes takes notice, then the government makes matters worse) For too long, we have let history outrun our government's ability to keep up with it. The right change will stop impeding Americans from doing what they have always done: overcome every obstacle to our progress, turn challenges into opportunities, and by our own industry, imagination and courage make a better country and a safer world the an we inherited. (This part of the “Redefinition” is technically apt, and although ‘the right change’ is an awkward concept, as ‘change’ technically implies an improvement or redefinition over current circumstances [which obviously belong to a prior set of “change(s)”], and his opponent’s concept of ‘change’ would probably agree to this sentence in its meanings. Now follows a laundry list which although many would more or less agree with, is platitudinal and populist enough to be technically an Appeal to Nature, even though this is forgivable in a candidate to POTUS:)
To keep our nation prosperous, strong and growing we have to rethink, reform and reinvent: the way we educate our children; train our workers; deliver health care services; support retirees; fuel our transportation network; stimulate research and development; and harness new technologies.
To keep us safe we must rebuild the structure and mission of our military; the capabilities of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies; the reach and scope of our diplomacy; the capacity of all branches of government to defend us. We need to strengthen our alliances, and preserve our moral credibility.
We must also prepare, far better than we have, to respond quickly and effectively to a natural calamity. When Americans confront a catastrophe they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. Firemen and policemen should be able to communicate with each other in an emergency. We should be able to deliver bottled water to dehydrated babies and rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity. Our disgraceful failure to do so here in New Orleans exposed the incompetence of government at all levels to meet even its most basic responsibilities.
The wrong change looks not to the future but to the past for solutions that have failed us before and will surely fail us again. (So, now we have the final definition of “right change,” and now he begins a Texas Sharpshooter process—drawing a target around the policy proposals [some of which I will suggest are Straw Man fallacies {fallacy within a fallacy} further weakening the speech] of the opponent and using an Ad Nauseam refrain, ‘that's not change we can believe in,’ as the ostensible bulls-eye) I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought in to so many failed ideas. Like others before him, he seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn't trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. (Straw Man) It's the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people. That attitude created the unresponsive bureaucracies of big government in the first place. And that's not change we can believe in. (Ad Nauseam)
You will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? (here is a counter argument to an Ad Nauseam refrain from his opponent, tellingly this will define the answer as to why he will rely upon Ad Nauseam argumentation throughout this speech and probably throughout his campaign—because he is defining his understanding of the tactic) Because he knows it's very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false. So he tries to drum it into your minds by constantly repeating it rather than debate honestly the very different directions he and I would take the country. But the American people didn't get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Senator Obama. (Fake Precision—claiming that the process “getting to know’ requires some pre-defined time frame) They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They've seen me put our country before any President -- before any party -- before any special interest -- before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always. (This is almost an Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premiss, but he does allude to his “long record,” therefore, although not proving it here, he asks us to refer to public record to take his point that because he sometimes disagrees with party or president he therefore is a servant to the nation. He then lays out incidentals defining his Premiss, but he doesn’t actually complete the conclusion “I am her servant,” rather he defines by implication his servitude as “the security of the country I have defended all my adult life.”)
I have worked with the President to keep our nation safe. But he and I have not seen eye to eye on many issues. We've disagreed over the conduct of the war in Iraq and the treatment of detainees; over out of control government spending and budget gimmicks; over energy policy and climate change; over defense spending that favored defense contractors over the public good.
I disagreed strongly with the Bush administration's mismanagement of the war in Iraq. I called for the change in strategy that is now, at last, succeeding where the previous strategy had failed miserably. I was criticized for doing so by Republicans. I was criticized by Democrats. I was criticized by the press. But I don't answer to them. I answer to you. And I would be ashamed to admit I knew what had to be done in Iraq to spare us from a defeat that would endanger us for years, but I kept quiet because it was too politically hard for me to do. No ambition is more important to me than the security of the country I have defended all my adult life.
Senator Obama opposed the new strategy, and, after promising not to, voted to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job of carrying it out. Yet in the last year we have seen the success of that plan as violence has fallen to a four year low; Sunni insurgents have joined us in the fight against al Qaeda; the Iraqi Army has taken the lead in places once lost to Sunni and Shia extremists; and the Iraqi Government has begun to make progress toward political reconciliation. (Technically this is an Ad Nauseam Reflection of the Redefinition [of Success], which has occurred throughout the War—for example, ‘We only lost 15 soldiers last month.’ The assertion that “only” makes the death of any service person reasonable to accept is in many minds a FALSE PREMISS, therefore in my book an Ipsedixitism)
None of this progress would have happened had we not changed course over a year ago. And all of this progress would be lost if Senator Obama had his way and began to withdraw our forces from Iraq without concern for conditions on the ground and the advice of commanders in the field. (Lets set aside the Straw Man argument that Obama and Democrats would recklessly remove forces to pick apart and even greater fallacy: If “Progress” is the in reference to the fallacies in the above paragraph, which I have shown is an Ad Nauseam Redefinition, then “None of,” and “All of,” become statements in McCain’s speech which would be redefined or translated logically into; ‘The War would have NOT happened;’ and in the second sentence then instead of the rough translation for progress [War] being the opposite of lost, hence won, there would be no need to win a war never started) Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, (This is an Ad Nauseam of a Straw Man which effectively uses Fake Precision regarding his opponents prior statements and subsequent contextual redefinitions) but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with General Petraeus (This is an Ad Nauseam Style Over Substance Fallacy and when asked in question form “Mr. Obama, why haven’t you traveled to Iraq to meet with General Patraeus?” Is also Begging The Question. This Ad Nauseam has often shown up as “Obama ‘refuses’ to meet,” when in fact Obama interacted with the General as recently as April 8th, 2008 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/obama-holds-first-committ_n_95593.html) , and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse (This use of “progress” an Appeal to Fear now puts us into a fallacy-within a fallacy-within a fallacy-within a fallacy [Texas Sharpshooter-Redefinition of Successful War-Style Over Substance-Appeal to Fear] *ouch*).
I know Americans are tired of this war. I don't oppose a reckless withdrawal from Iraq because I'm indifferent to the suffering war inflicts on too many American families. (Again a Straw Man implication that his opponent supports “a reckless withdrawal”) I hate war. And I know very personally how terrible its costs are. But I know, too, that the course Senator Obama advocates could draw us into a wider war with even greater sacrifices; put peace further out of reach, (technically another Ad Nauseam for which there is no proof therefore I am categorizing this as a Probabilistic Fallacy of some kind combined with Ipsedixitism, unless the Republicans have some sort of crystal ball they would like to make known) and Americans back in harm's way.
I take America's economic security as seriously as I do her physical security. For eight years the federal government has been on a spending spree that added trillions to the national debt. It spends more and more of your money on programs that have failed again and again to keep up with the changes confronting American families. Extravagant spending on things that are not the business of government indebts us to other nations; fuels inflation; raises interest rates; and encourages irresponsibility. I have opposed wasteful spending by both parties and the Bush administration. (Proof by Assertion, Ipsedixitism: I understand the voting record of Mr. McCain is ~88% in line with the Administration’s recommendations, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/201619/502/425/435878, but am open to facts being divulged to prove this claim) Senator Obama has supported it and proposed more of his own. I want to freeze discretionary spending until we have completed top to bottom reviews of all federal programs to weed out failing ones. (A Tu Quoque Straw Man where the position of his opponent is being simultaneously improved upon and assumed) Senator Obama opposes that reform. I opposed subsidies that favor big business over small farmers and tariffs on imported products that have greatly increased the cost of food. Senator Obama supports these billions of dollars in corporate subsidies and the tariffs that have led to rising grocery bills for American families. (Whether this is a factual statement or not in the first and last, the assumption ‘grocery bills rise because of corporate subsidies because of my opponent,’ in this instance is another Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premiss), That's not change we can believe in. (Ad Nauseam)
No problem is more urgent today than America's dependence on foreign oil. It threatens our security, our economy and our environment. The next President must be willing to break completely with the energy policies not just of the Bush Administration, but the administrations that preceded his, and lead a great national campaign to put us on a course to energy independence. We must unleash the creativity and genius of Americans, and encourage industries to pursue alternative, non-polluting and renewable energy sources, where demand will never exceed supply.
Senator Obama voted for the same policies that created the problem. In fact, he voted for the energy bill promoted by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, which gave even more breaks to the oil industry. I opposed it because I know we won't achieve energy independence by repeating the mistakes of the last half century. (I am not a fact checker, but that was the most logical statement of the speech, and now we get our Ad Nauseam…) That's not change we can believe in.
With forward thinking Democrats and Republicans, I proposed a climate change policy that would greatly reduce our dependence on oil. Our approach was opposed by President Bush, and by leading Democrats, and it was defeated by opposition from special interests that favor Republicans and those that favor Democrats. (Guilt by Association, he does not confirm or deny Mr. Obama’s position on the premisses) Senator Obama might criticize special interests that give more money to Republicans. But you won't often see him take on those that favor him. (Two Wrongs Make a Right—this I assume would excuse McCain’s own lobbyist under prior employ? http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/moveon_ad_demands_mccain_fire.php) If America is going to achieve energy independence, we need a President with a record of putting the nation's interests before the special interests of either party. I have that record. (I find this assertion dubious, and by referring to the record as proof will leave it to Fact Checkers) Senator Obama does not. (Tu Quoque)
Senator Obama proposes to keep spending money on programs that make our problems worse (Loaded Words—I am sure Obama’s platform does not suggest his intention is to make things worse) and create new ones (Subject-Object Shift, that the “problems” not the “programs” become the subject that will be “created”) that are modeled (Straw Man—no proof offered therefore also an Ipsedixitism) on big government programs that created much of the fiscal mess we are in. He plans to pay for these increases by raising taxes on seniors, parents, small business owners and every American with even a modest investment in the market. (Straw Man, unless I missed something on the Obama Website that indicates that tax policy, again I am not a fact checker) He doesn't trust us to make decisions for ourselves and wants the government to make them for us. (Straw Man) And that's not change we can believe in. (Ad Nauseam)
Senator Obama thinks we can improve health care by driving Americans into a new system of government orders, regulations and mandates. I believe we can make health care more available, affordable and responsive to patients by breaking from inflationary practices, insurance regulations, and tax policies that were designed generations ago, and by giving families more choices over their care. His plan represents the old ways of government. Mine trusts in the common sense of the American people. (This would be plausible… if you don’t understand Economics. My critique in this editing is regarding the fallacious nature of Mr. McCain’s opening salvo in the General Campaign for President of These United States of America, and my general disgust with the lack of cogent argumentation from the Republican side. I have studied Economics, and it almost defies imagination as to how by “breaking insurance regulations” we would somehow have a more fair and affordable system? At the end of the day an Ipsedixitism)
Senator Obama pretends we can address the loss of manufacturing jobs by repealing trade agreements and refusing to sign new ones; that we can build a stronger economy by limiting access to our markets and giving up access to foreign markets. (Straw Man—will any candidate please say words to the effect, “My opponent on May 3rd [such and such a date] said, and I quote….”) The global economy exists and is not going away. We either compete in it or we lose more jobs, more businesses, more dreams. We lose the future. (Appeal to Fear) He's an intelligent man, and he must know how foolish it is to think Americans can remain prosperous without opening new markets to our goods and services. But he feels he must defer to the special interests that support him. (I don’t even know where to begin…Modal Logic Fallacy of some sort, “He knows,” and “He feels.” Straw Man, but really? You know exactly how your opponent feels and what he thinks specifically? Very psychic of you.) That's not change we can believe in. (Ad Nauseam)
Lowering trade barriers to American goods and services creates more and better jobs; keeps inflation under control; keeps interest rates low; and makes more goods affordable to more Americans. We won't compete successfully by using old technology to produce old goods. We'll succeed by knowing what to produce and inventing new technologies to produce it. (That almost made sense, but really it was a string of assertions loosely associated with each other, therefore an Ipsedixitism)
We are not people who believe only in the survival of the fittest. (Hasty Generalization—America tends to have all beliefs in play amongst its populous, no matter how insignificantly small the minority, thanks to the First Amendment) Work in America is more than a paycheck; it a source of pride, self-reliance and identity. (Another Hasty Generalization—therefore ‘in America no one works to live…’ unless this is a hidden No True Scotsman, as in “No True American only works to live”) But making empty promises to bring back lost jobs gives nothing to the unemployed worker except false hope. (Appeal to Fear which leads into… Ad Nauseam) That's not change we can believe in. Reforming from top to bottom unemployment insurance and retraining programs that were designed for the 1950s, making use of our community colleges to train people for new opportunities will help workers who've lost a job that won't come back, find a job that won't go away. (Ipsedixitism)
My friends, we're not a country that would rather go back than forward. We're the world's leader, and leaders don't hide from history. They make history. But if we're going to lead, we have to reform a government that has lost its ability to help us do so. The solution to our problems isn't to reach back to the 1960s and 70s for answers. (Raising the spectre of the [after talking about the ‘50’s no less] 60s and 70s is the ground where in the 90s McCain gained his political footing so he has created an almost hidden Appeal to Motive in the form of some Straw Man position Obama and his supporters supposedly have) In just a few years in office, Senator Obama has accumulated the most liberal voting record in the Senate. But the old, tired, big government policies he seeks to dust off and call new won't work in a world that has changed dramatically since they were last tried and failed. (It might actually have been a successful argument except for the semantic word choice here. In trying for Loaded Words such as Big Government, McCain has walked into a Bear Trap regarding the truth of the current Administration having created The Biggest Government in US History, http://mises.org/story/2116, to which he was a participant, and by being in the Opposition Party to the Administration his Opponent does not have the burden of proof for his opposition to Big Government by association) That's not change we can believe in. (Ad Nauseam… thus endeth the Texas Sharpshooter demonstration of “right change”!)
The sweeping reforms of government we need won't occur unless we change the political habits of Washington that have locked us in an endless cycle of bickering and stalemate. Washington is consumed by a hyper-partisanship that treats every serious issue as an opportunity to trade insults; impugn each other's motives; and fight about the next election. This is the game Washington plays. Both parties play it, as do the special interests that support each side. The American people know it's not on the level. For all the problems we face, what frustrates them most about Washington is they don't think we're capable of serving the public interest before our personal ambitions; that we fight for ourselves and not for them. They are sick of the politics of selfishness, stalemate and delay, and they have every right to be. We have to change not only government policies that have failed them, but the political culture that produced them. (Most Americans would agree, although this is Ipsedixitism because none of his points were actually proven)
Both Senator Obama and I promise we will end Washington's stagnant, unproductive partisanship. But one of us has a record of working to do that and one of us doesn't. (More reliance of the “record” for proof, hence an Ipsedixitism) Americans have seen me put aside partisan and personal interests to move this country forward. They haven't seen Senator Obama do the same. (Straw Man) For all his fine words and all his promise, he has never taken the hard but right course of risking his own interests for yours; of standing against the partisan rancor on his side to stand up for our country. (Straw Man) He is an impressive man, who makes a great first impression. (Association Fallacy—as if any man who makes a great impression must be self centered) But he hasn't been willing to make the tough calls; to challenge his party; to risk criticism from his supporters to bring real change to Washington. (Ipsedixitism) I have.
When members of my party refused to compromise not on principle but for partisanship, I have sought to do so. When I fought corruption it didn't matter to me if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. I exposed it and let the chips fall where they may. When I worked on campaign finance and ethics reform, I did so with Democrats and Republicans, even though we were criticized by other members of our parties, who preferred to keep things as they were. I have never refused to work with Democrats simply for the sake of partisanship. I've always known we belong to different parties, not different countries. We are Americans before we are anything else. (Plausible, but still Ipsedixitism… would have been good to name drop some co-sponsors here to make the proof)
I don't seek the presidency on the presumption I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. (Implied Straw Man—the only words missing were, “but Senator Obama does.”) I seek the office with the humility of a man who cannot forget my country saved me. I'll reach out my hand to anyone, Republican or Democrat, who will help me change what needs to be changed; fix what needs to be fixed; and give this country a government as capable and good as the people it is supposed to serve. There is a time to campaign, and a time to govern. If I'm elected President, the era of the permanent campaign of the last sixteen years will end. The era of reform and problem solving will begin. From my first day in office, I'll work with anyone to make America safe, prosperous and proud. (Not surprisingly, even appropriately an Appeal to Tradition) And I won't care who gets the credit as long as America gets the benefit.
I have seen Republicans and Democrats achieve great things together. When the stakes were high and it mattered most, I've seen them work together in common purpose, as we did in the weeks after September 11th. (Ad Nauseam argumentum in terrorem) This kind of cooperation has made all the difference at crucial turns in our history. It has given us hope in difficult times. It has moved America forward. And that, my friends, is the kind of change we need right now. (It then is the conclusion that this is the definition of “right” change, except that his conclusion relies upon an Emotional Appeal designed to harken back to when Bush II had 80%+ popularity, everyone was afraid of the unknown quantity called ‘terrorist,’ and Republicans controlled everything. I then derive that the basic translation of “right change” becomes; lets change back to when Republicans were popular and in control before we threw that out with the false war. I can understand why he would have that message.)
Thank you (you are not welcome, please don’t do this again, because I probably wont!)
(PS- Yes, in the interest of fairness, I will do one of these IFF in listening to an Obama speech my logical senses cringe at the inanity of the words coming from his mouth. Good luck with that.)
(Comments in Parenthesis)
Good evening from the great city of New Orleans. (False – He was in Kenner) Tonight, we can say with confidence the primary season is over, and the general election campaign has begun. I commend both Senators Obama and Clinton for the long, hard race they have run. Senator Obama has impressed many Americans with his eloquence and his spirited campaign. Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. (Emotional Appeal) As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach. I am proud to call her my friend. Pundits and party elders have declared that Senator Obama will be my opponent. (Masked Man—Obama won, Party elders and Pundits have lauded him, therefore Obama won because of Party Elders and Pundits) He will be a formidable one. But I'm ready for the challenge, and determined to run this race in a way that does credit to our campaign and to the proud, decent and patriotic people I ask [sic?] to lead.
The decision facing Americans in this election couldn't be more important to the future security and prosperity of American families. This is, indeed, a change election. No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically. But, the choice is between the right change and the wrong change; between going forward and going backward. (Not a fallacy, but an attempt similar to the McCain’s new slogan [A Leader We Can Believe In –v- Change We Can Believe In {Obama}] to co-opt the message from his opponent so technically a Tu Quoque Implied)
America has seen tough times before. We've always known how to get through them. And we've always believed our best days are ahead of us. I believe that still. But we must rise to the occasion, as we always have; change what must be changed; and make the future better than the past.
The right change (Redefinition, the implication being his opponent advocates “an incorrect change”) recognizes that many of the policies and institutions of our government have failed. They have failed to keep up with the challenges of our time because many of these policies were designed for the problems and opportunities of the mid to late 20th Century, before the end of the Cold War; before the revolution in information technology and rise of the global economy. The right kind of change will initiate widespread and innovative reforms in almost every area of government policy -- health care, energy, the environment, the tax code, our public schools, our transportation system, disaster relief, government spending and regulation, diplomacy, the military and intelligence services. Serious and far-reaching reforms are needed in so many areas of government to meet our own challenges in our own time. (He has now defined “change” as many would perceive it, but again has attempted to link himself with the redefined “right,” which is also evocative to a political stance [versus “left,” or “liberal”])
The irony is that Americans have been experiencing a lot of change in their lives attributable to these historic events, and some of those changes have distressed many American families -- job loss, failing schools, prohibitively expensive health care, pensions at risk, entitlement programs approaching bankruptcy, rising gas and food prices, to name a few. But your government often acts as if it is completely unaware of the changes and hardships in your lives. (The irony is he has been a part of that Government!) And when government does take notice, often it only makes matters worse. (Appeal to Consequences—because things have been getting worse, and the government sometimes takes notice, then the government makes matters worse) For too long, we have let history outrun our government's ability to keep up with it. The right change will stop impeding Americans from doing what they have always done: overcome every obstacle to our progress, turn challenges into opportunities, and by our own industry, imagination and courage make a better country and a safer world the an we inherited. (This part of the “Redefinition” is technically apt, and although ‘the right change’ is an awkward concept, as ‘change’ technically implies an improvement or redefinition over current circumstances [which obviously belong to a prior set of “change(s)”], and his opponent’s concept of ‘change’ would probably agree to this sentence in its meanings. Now follows a laundry list which although many would more or less agree with, is platitudinal and populist enough to be technically an Appeal to Nature, even though this is forgivable in a candidate to POTUS:)
To keep our nation prosperous, strong and growing we have to rethink, reform and reinvent: the way we educate our children; train our workers; deliver health care services; support retirees; fuel our transportation network; stimulate research and development; and harness new technologies.
To keep us safe we must rebuild the structure and mission of our military; the capabilities of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies; the reach and scope of our diplomacy; the capacity of all branches of government to defend us. We need to strengthen our alliances, and preserve our moral credibility.
We must also prepare, far better than we have, to respond quickly and effectively to a natural calamity. When Americans confront a catastrophe they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. Firemen and policemen should be able to communicate with each other in an emergency. We should be able to deliver bottled water to dehydrated babies and rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity. Our disgraceful failure to do so here in New Orleans exposed the incompetence of government at all levels to meet even its most basic responsibilities.
The wrong change looks not to the future but to the past for solutions that have failed us before and will surely fail us again. (So, now we have the final definition of “right change,” and now he begins a Texas Sharpshooter process—drawing a target around the policy proposals [some of which I will suggest are Straw Man fallacies {fallacy within a fallacy} further weakening the speech] of the opponent and using an Ad Nauseam refrain, ‘that's not change we can believe in,’ as the ostensible bulls-eye) I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought in to so many failed ideas. Like others before him, he seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn't trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. (Straw Man) It's the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people. That attitude created the unresponsive bureaucracies of big government in the first place. And that's not change we can believe in. (Ad Nauseam)
You will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? (here is a counter argument to an Ad Nauseam refrain from his opponent, tellingly this will define the answer as to why he will rely upon Ad Nauseam argumentation throughout this speech and probably throughout his campaign—because he is defining his understanding of the tactic) Because he knows it's very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false. So he tries to drum it into your minds by constantly repeating it rather than debate honestly the very different directions he and I would take the country. But the American people didn't get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Senator Obama. (Fake Precision—claiming that the process “getting to know’ requires some pre-defined time frame) They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They've seen me put our country before any President -- before any party -- before any special interest -- before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always. (This is almost an Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premiss, but he does allude to his “long record,” therefore, although not proving it here, he asks us to refer to public record to take his point that because he sometimes disagrees with party or president he therefore is a servant to the nation. He then lays out incidentals defining his Premiss, but he doesn’t actually complete the conclusion “I am her servant,” rather he defines by implication his servitude as “the security of the country I have defended all my adult life.”)
I have worked with the President to keep our nation safe. But he and I have not seen eye to eye on many issues. We've disagreed over the conduct of the war in Iraq and the treatment of detainees; over out of control government spending and budget gimmicks; over energy policy and climate change; over defense spending that favored defense contractors over the public good.
I disagreed strongly with the Bush administration's mismanagement of the war in Iraq. I called for the change in strategy that is now, at last, succeeding where the previous strategy had failed miserably. I was criticized for doing so by Republicans. I was criticized by Democrats. I was criticized by the press. But I don't answer to them. I answer to you. And I would be ashamed to admit I knew what had to be done in Iraq to spare us from a defeat that would endanger us for years, but I kept quiet because it was too politically hard for me to do. No ambition is more important to me than the security of the country I have defended all my adult life.
Senator Obama opposed the new strategy, and, after promising not to, voted to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job of carrying it out. Yet in the last year we have seen the success of that plan as violence has fallen to a four year low; Sunni insurgents have joined us in the fight against al Qaeda; the Iraqi Army has taken the lead in places once lost to Sunni and Shia extremists; and the Iraqi Government has begun to make progress toward political reconciliation. (Technically this is an Ad Nauseam Reflection of the Redefinition [of Success], which has occurred throughout the War—for example, ‘We only lost 15 soldiers last month.’ The assertion that “only” makes the death of any service person reasonable to accept is in many minds a FALSE PREMISS, therefore in my book an Ipsedixitism)
None of this progress would have happened had we not changed course over a year ago. And all of this progress would be lost if Senator Obama had his way and began to withdraw our forces from Iraq without concern for conditions on the ground and the advice of commanders in the field. (Lets set aside the Straw Man argument that Obama and Democrats would recklessly remove forces to pick apart and even greater fallacy: If “Progress” is the in reference to the fallacies in the above paragraph, which I have shown is an Ad Nauseam Redefinition, then “None of,” and “All of,” become statements in McCain’s speech which would be redefined or translated logically into; ‘The War would have NOT happened;’ and in the second sentence then instead of the rough translation for progress [War] being the opposite of lost, hence won, there would be no need to win a war never started) Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, (This is an Ad Nauseam of a Straw Man which effectively uses Fake Precision regarding his opponents prior statements and subsequent contextual redefinitions) but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with General Petraeus (This is an Ad Nauseam Style Over Substance Fallacy and when asked in question form “Mr. Obama, why haven’t you traveled to Iraq to meet with General Patraeus?” Is also Begging The Question. This Ad Nauseam has often shown up as “Obama ‘refuses’ to meet,” when in fact Obama interacted with the General as recently as April 8th, 2008 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/obama-holds-first-committ_n_95593.html) , and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse (This use of “progress” an Appeal to Fear now puts us into a fallacy-within a fallacy-within a fallacy-within a fallacy [Texas Sharpshooter-Redefinition of Successful War-Style Over Substance-Appeal to Fear] *ouch*).
I know Americans are tired of this war. I don't oppose a reckless withdrawal from Iraq because I'm indifferent to the suffering war inflicts on too many American families. (Again a Straw Man implication that his opponent supports “a reckless withdrawal”) I hate war. And I know very personally how terrible its costs are. But I know, too, that the course Senator Obama advocates could draw us into a wider war with even greater sacrifices; put peace further out of reach, (technically another Ad Nauseam for which there is no proof therefore I am categorizing this as a Probabilistic Fallacy of some kind combined with Ipsedixitism, unless the Republicans have some sort of crystal ball they would like to make known) and Americans back in harm's way.
I take America's economic security as seriously as I do her physical security. For eight years the federal government has been on a spending spree that added trillions to the national debt. It spends more and more of your money on programs that have failed again and again to keep up with the changes confronting American families. Extravagant spending on things that are not the business of government indebts us to other nations; fuels inflation; raises interest rates; and encourages irresponsibility. I have opposed wasteful spending by both parties and the Bush administration. (Proof by Assertion, Ipsedixitism: I understand the voting record of Mr. McCain is ~88% in line with the Administration’s recommendations, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/201619/502/425/435878, but am open to facts being divulged to prove this claim) Senator Obama has supported it and proposed more of his own. I want to freeze discretionary spending until we have completed top to bottom reviews of all federal programs to weed out failing ones. (A Tu Quoque Straw Man where the position of his opponent is being simultaneously improved upon and assumed) Senator Obama opposes that reform. I opposed subsidies that favor big business over small farmers and tariffs on imported products that have greatly increased the cost of food. Senator Obama supports these billions of dollars in corporate subsidies and the tariffs that have led to rising grocery bills for American families. (Whether this is a factual statement or not in the first and last, the assumption ‘grocery bills rise because of corporate subsidies because of my opponent,’ in this instance is another Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premiss), That's not change we can believe in. (Ad Nauseam)
No problem is more urgent today than America's dependence on foreign oil. It threatens our security, our economy and our environment. The next President must be willing to break completely with the energy policies not just of the Bush Administration, but the administrations that preceded his, and lead a great national campaign to put us on a course to energy independence. We must unleash the creativity and genius of Americans, and encourage industries to pursue alternative, non-polluting and renewable energy sources, where demand will never exceed supply.
Senator Obama voted for the same policies that created the problem. In fact, he voted for the energy bill promoted by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, which gave even more breaks to the oil industry. I opposed it because I know we won't achieve energy independence by repeating the mistakes of the last half century. (I am not a fact checker, but that was the most logical statement of the speech, and now we get our Ad Nauseam…) That's not change we can believe in.
With forward thinking Democrats and Republicans, I proposed a climate change policy that would greatly reduce our dependence on oil. Our approach was opposed by President Bush, and by leading Democrats, and it was defeated by opposition from special interests that favor Republicans and those that favor Democrats. (Guilt by Association, he does not confirm or deny Mr. Obama’s position on the premisses) Senator Obama might criticize special interests that give more money to Republicans. But you won't often see him take on those that favor him. (Two Wrongs Make a Right—this I assume would excuse McCain’s own lobbyist under prior employ? http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/moveon_ad_demands_mccain_fire.php) If America is going to achieve energy independence, we need a President with a record of putting the nation's interests before the special interests of either party. I have that record. (I find this assertion dubious, and by referring to the record as proof will leave it to Fact Checkers) Senator Obama does not. (Tu Quoque)
Senator Obama proposes to keep spending money on programs that make our problems worse (Loaded Words—I am sure Obama’s platform does not suggest his intention is to make things worse) and create new ones (Subject-Object Shift, that the “problems” not the “programs” become the subject that will be “created”) that are modeled (Straw Man—no proof offered therefore also an Ipsedixitism) on big government programs that created much of the fiscal mess we are in. He plans to pay for these increases by raising taxes on seniors, parents, small business owners and every American with even a modest investment in the market. (Straw Man, unless I missed something on the Obama Website that indicates that tax policy, again I am not a fact checker) He doesn't trust us to make decisions for ourselves and wants the government to make them for us. (Straw Man) And that's not change we can believe in. (Ad Nauseam)
Senator Obama thinks we can improve health care by driving Americans into a new system of government orders, regulations and mandates. I believe we can make health care more available, affordable and responsive to patients by breaking from inflationary practices, insurance regulations, and tax policies that were designed generations ago, and by giving families more choices over their care. His plan represents the old ways of government. Mine trusts in the common sense of the American people. (This would be plausible… if you don’t understand Economics. My critique in this editing is regarding the fallacious nature of Mr. McCain’s opening salvo in the General Campaign for President of These United States of America, and my general disgust with the lack of cogent argumentation from the Republican side. I have studied Economics, and it almost defies imagination as to how by “breaking insurance regulations” we would somehow have a more fair and affordable system? At the end of the day an Ipsedixitism)
Senator Obama pretends we can address the loss of manufacturing jobs by repealing trade agreements and refusing to sign new ones; that we can build a stronger economy by limiting access to our markets and giving up access to foreign markets. (Straw Man—will any candidate please say words to the effect, “My opponent on May 3rd [such and such a date] said, and I quote….”) The global economy exists and is not going away. We either compete in it or we lose more jobs, more businesses, more dreams. We lose the future. (Appeal to Fear) He's an intelligent man, and he must know how foolish it is to think Americans can remain prosperous without opening new markets to our goods and services. But he feels he must defer to the special interests that support him. (I don’t even know where to begin…Modal Logic Fallacy of some sort, “He knows,” and “He feels.” Straw Man, but really? You know exactly how your opponent feels and what he thinks specifically? Very psychic of you.) That's not change we can believe in. (Ad Nauseam)
Lowering trade barriers to American goods and services creates more and better jobs; keeps inflation under control; keeps interest rates low; and makes more goods affordable to more Americans. We won't compete successfully by using old technology to produce old goods. We'll succeed by knowing what to produce and inventing new technologies to produce it. (That almost made sense, but really it was a string of assertions loosely associated with each other, therefore an Ipsedixitism)
We are not people who believe only in the survival of the fittest. (Hasty Generalization—America tends to have all beliefs in play amongst its populous, no matter how insignificantly small the minority, thanks to the First Amendment) Work in America is more than a paycheck; it a source of pride, self-reliance and identity. (Another Hasty Generalization—therefore ‘in America no one works to live…’ unless this is a hidden No True Scotsman, as in “No True American only works to live”) But making empty promises to bring back lost jobs gives nothing to the unemployed worker except false hope. (Appeal to Fear which leads into… Ad Nauseam) That's not change we can believe in. Reforming from top to bottom unemployment insurance and retraining programs that were designed for the 1950s, making use of our community colleges to train people for new opportunities will help workers who've lost a job that won't come back, find a job that won't go away. (Ipsedixitism)
My friends, we're not a country that would rather go back than forward. We're the world's leader, and leaders don't hide from history. They make history. But if we're going to lead, we have to reform a government that has lost its ability to help us do so. The solution to our problems isn't to reach back to the 1960s and 70s for answers. (Raising the spectre of the [after talking about the ‘50’s no less] 60s and 70s is the ground where in the 90s McCain gained his political footing so he has created an almost hidden Appeal to Motive in the form of some Straw Man position Obama and his supporters supposedly have) In just a few years in office, Senator Obama has accumulated the most liberal voting record in the Senate. But the old, tired, big government policies he seeks to dust off and call new won't work in a world that has changed dramatically since they were last tried and failed. (It might actually have been a successful argument except for the semantic word choice here. In trying for Loaded Words such as Big Government, McCain has walked into a Bear Trap regarding the truth of the current Administration having created The Biggest Government in US History, http://mises.org/story/2116, to which he was a participant, and by being in the Opposition Party to the Administration his Opponent does not have the burden of proof for his opposition to Big Government by association) That's not change we can believe in. (Ad Nauseam… thus endeth the Texas Sharpshooter demonstration of “right change”!)
The sweeping reforms of government we need won't occur unless we change the political habits of Washington that have locked us in an endless cycle of bickering and stalemate. Washington is consumed by a hyper-partisanship that treats every serious issue as an opportunity to trade insults; impugn each other's motives; and fight about the next election. This is the game Washington plays. Both parties play it, as do the special interests that support each side. The American people know it's not on the level. For all the problems we face, what frustrates them most about Washington is they don't think we're capable of serving the public interest before our personal ambitions; that we fight for ourselves and not for them. They are sick of the politics of selfishness, stalemate and delay, and they have every right to be. We have to change not only government policies that have failed them, but the political culture that produced them. (Most Americans would agree, although this is Ipsedixitism because none of his points were actually proven)
Both Senator Obama and I promise we will end Washington's stagnant, unproductive partisanship. But one of us has a record of working to do that and one of us doesn't. (More reliance of the “record” for proof, hence an Ipsedixitism) Americans have seen me put aside partisan and personal interests to move this country forward. They haven't seen Senator Obama do the same. (Straw Man) For all his fine words and all his promise, he has never taken the hard but right course of risking his own interests for yours; of standing against the partisan rancor on his side to stand up for our country. (Straw Man) He is an impressive man, who makes a great first impression. (Association Fallacy—as if any man who makes a great impression must be self centered) But he hasn't been willing to make the tough calls; to challenge his party; to risk criticism from his supporters to bring real change to Washington. (Ipsedixitism) I have.
When members of my party refused to compromise not on principle but for partisanship, I have sought to do so. When I fought corruption it didn't matter to me if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. I exposed it and let the chips fall where they may. When I worked on campaign finance and ethics reform, I did so with Democrats and Republicans, even though we were criticized by other members of our parties, who preferred to keep things as they were. I have never refused to work with Democrats simply for the sake of partisanship. I've always known we belong to different parties, not different countries. We are Americans before we are anything else. (Plausible, but still Ipsedixitism… would have been good to name drop some co-sponsors here to make the proof)
I don't seek the presidency on the presumption I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. (Implied Straw Man—the only words missing were, “but Senator Obama does.”) I seek the office with the humility of a man who cannot forget my country saved me. I'll reach out my hand to anyone, Republican or Democrat, who will help me change what needs to be changed; fix what needs to be fixed; and give this country a government as capable and good as the people it is supposed to serve. There is a time to campaign, and a time to govern. If I'm elected President, the era of the permanent campaign of the last sixteen years will end. The era of reform and problem solving will begin. From my first day in office, I'll work with anyone to make America safe, prosperous and proud. (Not surprisingly, even appropriately an Appeal to Tradition) And I won't care who gets the credit as long as America gets the benefit.
I have seen Republicans and Democrats achieve great things together. When the stakes were high and it mattered most, I've seen them work together in common purpose, as we did in the weeks after September 11th. (Ad Nauseam argumentum in terrorem) This kind of cooperation has made all the difference at crucial turns in our history. It has given us hope in difficult times. It has moved America forward. And that, my friends, is the kind of change we need right now. (It then is the conclusion that this is the definition of “right” change, except that his conclusion relies upon an Emotional Appeal designed to harken back to when Bush II had 80%+ popularity, everyone was afraid of the unknown quantity called ‘terrorist,’ and Republicans controlled everything. I then derive that the basic translation of “right change” becomes; lets change back to when Republicans were popular and in control before we threw that out with the false war. I can understand why he would have that message.)
Thank you (you are not welcome, please don’t do this again, because I probably wont!)
(PS- Yes, in the interest of fairness, I will do one of these IFF in listening to an Obama speech my logical senses cringe at the inanity of the words coming from his mouth. Good luck with that.)
Monday, June 2, 2008
Second Example (of American Logical Fallacy)
From:
http://redstate.com/blogs/thesophist/2008/jun/02/senator_obama_is_a_man_of_principle
(Fallacies in Parenthesis)
Senator Barack Obama, by withdrawing from Trinity United Church, has shown us all that he is a man of uncompromising principle.
Obama took care to praise Trinity's work to "help the hungry and homeless and people in need of medical care" and said he had "tremendous regard" for Moss.
"But it's clear that now that I am a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by any one associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long held views, statements and principles," Obama said.
What character! What resolve! What manly courage to hew true to his principle in the face of difficulty. (Ad hominum AND Fake precision)
That principle, of course, is the principle of self-promotion. (Illicit Process)
Obama may profess any number of principles and values, but it is clear now to all Americans that his highest value is himself, and his firmest conviction is in self-promotion. There is no storm that Obama will not weather, no battle he will not fight, no challenger he will not stare down in order to be true to his principle of Obama Shall Prevail. (Non Causa Pro Causa)
Let us review.
This is the man's church for over twenty years.
The pastor that he renounced is the man he called his spiritual mentor, who married him and his wife, who baptized his children.
He is resigning the church, not because of fundamental schism with the theology of the church, but because of politics:
Well, you know, after the National Press Club episode, as I said, I had a long conversation with Michelle and also had a long conversation with Reverend Moss. We prayed on it and you know, my interest has never been to try to politicize this or put the church in a position where is subject to the same rigors and demands of a presidential campaign. My suspicion at that time, and Michelle, I think, shared this concern, was that it was going to be very difficult to continue our membership there so long as I was running for president.
Furthermore, Obama wants us to back off:
I don’t think anybody can suggest that I have really tried to make this work because I have cared about my relationship to the people of that church, who I care for very deeply.
O rly? Watch me. I suggest that you don't care about your relationship to the people of that church. I suggest that you would sell every single one of your fellow congregants down the river if that would get you one more vote. Oh wait! You just did that! (Appeal to Consequences)
I have a fractious relationship with my church, a fairly liberal congregation in the PCUSA. I won't resign it, though, and I haven't been there for TWENTY years. Because the Church is more than just what the pastor says. The church is a collection of people, men and women who I'm getting to know better every week, who I've gotten to know. We have a relationship together based on our common faith -- even if we should have theological differences from time to time.
The church, Senator Obama, is not a social club. If you are really a Christian, then the church is an incredibly important spiritual community. It isn't easy to find one, but once you do, it had better be something damn important to make you leave it. (No True Scotsman)
The ONLY valid reason to leave a church is when you feel that your faith demands it of you. When the teachings of the church, when the beliefs of the community of believers, are so out of whack with what you believe religiously, spiritually, that the church endangers your relationship with God and imperils your immortal soul. (No True Scotsman)
You left your church of TWENTY YEARS over... politics? Over your campaign for President? Because the ministers said vile things you don't agree with? (Assuming that you're being honest about your shock, shock at finding anti-Americanism in your church, that is.) (Begging The Question)
This was your spiritual home, man. Your spiritual family. Your brothers and sisters in Christ. (Emotional Appeal)
Or... maybe not:
That’s not the role of church. My — again what I want to do in church is I want to be able to take Michelle and my girls, sit in a pew quietly, hopefully get some nice music, some good reflection, praise God, thank Him for all of the blessings He has given our family, put some money in the collection plate, maybe afterwards go out and grab some brunch, have my girls go to Sunday school. That’s what I am looking for.
Senator Obama is a man of principle.
He will not flinch to make the tough decisions to further his principle. If that means ditching your spiritual home of 20 years, in order to advance the principle of Obama Uber Alles, then he can, will, and in this case, has done it. (Argumentum ad Nazium)
My question is... if he can ditch his church, his spiritual home for twenty years, filled with friends and coreligionists with whom he had prayed and worshipped over two decades, and he can do that over poll numbers... what will he NOT ditch for politics? (Question-Begging Analogy)
What will he not abandon to uphold his principle of self-promotion and self-glorification? (Anecdotal Fallacy)
Senator Obama is a man of principle.
-TS
http://redstate.com/blogs/thesophist/2008/jun/02/senator_obama_is_a_man_of_principle
(Fallacies in Parenthesis)
Senator Barack Obama, by withdrawing from Trinity United Church, has shown us all that he is a man of uncompromising principle.
Obama took care to praise Trinity's work to "help the hungry and homeless and people in need of medical care" and said he had "tremendous regard" for Moss.
"But it's clear that now that I am a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by any one associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long held views, statements and principles," Obama said.
What character! What resolve! What manly courage to hew true to his principle in the face of difficulty. (Ad hominum AND Fake precision)
That principle, of course, is the principle of self-promotion. (Illicit Process)
Obama may profess any number of principles and values, but it is clear now to all Americans that his highest value is himself, and his firmest conviction is in self-promotion. There is no storm that Obama will not weather, no battle he will not fight, no challenger he will not stare down in order to be true to his principle of Obama Shall Prevail. (Non Causa Pro Causa)
Let us review.
This is the man's church for over twenty years.
The pastor that he renounced is the man he called his spiritual mentor, who married him and his wife, who baptized his children.
He is resigning the church, not because of fundamental schism with the theology of the church, but because of politics:
Well, you know, after the National Press Club episode, as I said, I had a long conversation with Michelle and also had a long conversation with Reverend Moss. We prayed on it and you know, my interest has never been to try to politicize this or put the church in a position where is subject to the same rigors and demands of a presidential campaign. My suspicion at that time, and Michelle, I think, shared this concern, was that it was going to be very difficult to continue our membership there so long as I was running for president.
Furthermore, Obama wants us to back off:
I don’t think anybody can suggest that I have really tried to make this work because I have cared about my relationship to the people of that church, who I care for very deeply.
O rly? Watch me. I suggest that you don't care about your relationship to the people of that church. I suggest that you would sell every single one of your fellow congregants down the river if that would get you one more vote. Oh wait! You just did that! (Appeal to Consequences)
I have a fractious relationship with my church, a fairly liberal congregation in the PCUSA. I won't resign it, though, and I haven't been there for TWENTY years. Because the Church is more than just what the pastor says. The church is a collection of people, men and women who I'm getting to know better every week, who I've gotten to know. We have a relationship together based on our common faith -- even if we should have theological differences from time to time.
The church, Senator Obama, is not a social club. If you are really a Christian, then the church is an incredibly important spiritual community. It isn't easy to find one, but once you do, it had better be something damn important to make you leave it. (No True Scotsman)
The ONLY valid reason to leave a church is when you feel that your faith demands it of you. When the teachings of the church, when the beliefs of the community of believers, are so out of whack with what you believe religiously, spiritually, that the church endangers your relationship with God and imperils your immortal soul. (No True Scotsman)
You left your church of TWENTY YEARS over... politics? Over your campaign for President? Because the ministers said vile things you don't agree with? (Assuming that you're being honest about your shock, shock at finding anti-Americanism in your church, that is.) (Begging The Question)
This was your spiritual home, man. Your spiritual family. Your brothers and sisters in Christ. (Emotional Appeal)
Or... maybe not:
That’s not the role of church. My — again what I want to do in church is I want to be able to take Michelle and my girls, sit in a pew quietly, hopefully get some nice music, some good reflection, praise God, thank Him for all of the blessings He has given our family, put some money in the collection plate, maybe afterwards go out and grab some brunch, have my girls go to Sunday school. That’s what I am looking for.
Senator Obama is a man of principle.
He will not flinch to make the tough decisions to further his principle. If that means ditching your spiritual home of 20 years, in order to advance the principle of Obama Uber Alles, then he can, will, and in this case, has done it. (Argumentum ad Nazium)
My question is... if he can ditch his church, his spiritual home for twenty years, filled with friends and coreligionists with whom he had prayed and worshipped over two decades, and he can do that over poll numbers... what will he NOT ditch for politics? (Question-Begging Analogy)
What will he not abandon to uphold his principle of self-promotion and self-glorification? (Anecdotal Fallacy)
Senator Obama is a man of principle.
-TS
Friday, May 30, 2008
First Example (of American Logical Fallacy)
From: http://redstate.com/blogs/ericka_andersen/2008/may/29/sen_obama_dont_go_if_you_are_not_coming_home_with_the_truth
(Fallacies in parenthesis)
I’m not sure why it took this long for someone to make a big deal of the fact that Barack Obama has only visited Iraq one time over two years ago. (straw man argument) It’s no surprise he has chosen not to meet with Gen. Petraeus, visit our troops or get a personal assessment of the situation on the ground overseas. (Style over substance fallacy) He knows, from seeing other anti-war politicians like Dick Durbin and Hillary Clinton – that it is impossible to deny the progress and positive change when you are faced with it head on. Those two, among others, admitted the truth – that we have done well. (Proof by assertion)
To admit such liberal blasephamy would hamper his purist no-Iraq war image. (Tu quoque ) Perhaps after he’s snagged the nomination for real, it’s a safer bet. But even then, he will look a distant second to John McCain’s seasoned war experience, close relationship with Petraeus and heroic reputation as a war hero. (Appeal to flattery)
What changed America? 9/11. And who does America want in charge when 9/11 strikes again? There is no greater threat to our society. It’s most important right now to have a commander in chief who understands that. (argumentum in terrorem) Barack Obama does not. He cannot. Literally, he cannot. (ad hominum) And he knows that he can’t have any authority on the situation so he caved to McCain’s request to join him in a trip to Iraq. (Wishful thinking ) Well, half caved. There’s no way he’d hop a plane with the one who could pull the presidency from his grasp in a few short months.
He’s going alone. For what purpose? (Subject/Motive Shift) He’s going to “talk to the troops and commanders” but what if they tell him what he doesn’t want to hear? What if they tell him the opposite of his message? A man whose never served in the military and wants to COMMAND our troops in battle having only once stepped foot on their fields? It’s shocking that this could be our reality. (Ipsedixitism)
Do you think he plans on reporting the good news he hears? (Special pleading) Hell no. But I guarantee you now, he WILL hear good news. He will hear that violence is down, that deaths are down, that the democratically elected Iraqi government is finally taking control of themselves, that al-Qaeda exists now in record lows. Do you know why? Because we were there. (No true Scotsman) But Obama’s gone too far to come back now. He can’t backtrack when half of the country is getting off on the delusion he’s created by way of heartsoaring speeches and words of bipartisan rhetoric. He can’t take the dream away now, can he? (petitio principii) Well, he could. But he won’t.
Sen. Obama, don’t go to Iraq if you are not coming back with the truth. Don’t do that to our troops. Don’t do that to the Iraqis. Don’t do that to us. It’s never too late to start doing the right thing. (Hasty generalization) And usually that begins with the truth.
(Fallacies in parenthesis)
I’m not sure why it took this long for someone to make a big deal of the fact that Barack Obama has only visited Iraq one time over two years ago. (straw man argument) It’s no surprise he has chosen not to meet with Gen. Petraeus, visit our troops or get a personal assessment of the situation on the ground overseas. (Style over substance fallacy) He knows, from seeing other anti-war politicians like Dick Durbin and Hillary Clinton – that it is impossible to deny the progress and positive change when you are faced with it head on. Those two, among others, admitted the truth – that we have done well. (Proof by assertion)
To admit such liberal blasephamy would hamper his purist no-Iraq war image. (Tu quoque ) Perhaps after he’s snagged the nomination for real, it’s a safer bet. But even then, he will look a distant second to John McCain’s seasoned war experience, close relationship with Petraeus and heroic reputation as a war hero. (Appeal to flattery)
What changed America? 9/11. And who does America want in charge when 9/11 strikes again? There is no greater threat to our society. It’s most important right now to have a commander in chief who understands that. (argumentum in terrorem) Barack Obama does not. He cannot. Literally, he cannot. (ad hominum) And he knows that he can’t have any authority on the situation so he caved to McCain’s request to join him in a trip to Iraq. (Wishful thinking ) Well, half caved. There’s no way he’d hop a plane with the one who could pull the presidency from his grasp in a few short months.
He’s going alone. For what purpose? (Subject/Motive Shift) He’s going to “talk to the troops and commanders” but what if they tell him what he doesn’t want to hear? What if they tell him the opposite of his message? A man whose never served in the military and wants to COMMAND our troops in battle having only once stepped foot on their fields? It’s shocking that this could be our reality. (Ipsedixitism)
Do you think he plans on reporting the good news he hears? (Special pleading) Hell no. But I guarantee you now, he WILL hear good news. He will hear that violence is down, that deaths are down, that the democratically elected Iraqi government is finally taking control of themselves, that al-Qaeda exists now in record lows. Do you know why? Because we were there. (No true Scotsman) But Obama’s gone too far to come back now. He can’t backtrack when half of the country is getting off on the delusion he’s created by way of heartsoaring speeches and words of bipartisan rhetoric. He can’t take the dream away now, can he? (petitio principii) Well, he could. But he won’t.
Sen. Obama, don’t go to Iraq if you are not coming back with the truth. Don’t do that to our troops. Don’t do that to the Iraqis. Don’t do that to us. It’s never too late to start doing the right thing. (Hasty generalization) And usually that begins with the truth.
Fallacy Watch
The Game is Afoot....
I expect to see a lot of logical fallacies between now and November, and I am planning on occasionally making fodder of certain poorly thought arguments.
I hope to help take some of the baby steps into beginning a new Age of Reason!
Here are a formal list (thanks to Wikipedia):
Formal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious due to an error in their form or technical structure. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.
1. Appeal to probability: because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.
2. Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion must necessarily be false.
3. Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
4. Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
5. Conjunction fallacy: assumption that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one.
6. Correlative based fallacies
7. Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none
8. Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible
9. Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises
10. False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several
11. If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question
12. Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis)
13. Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process
14. Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one
15. Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is "good" or "right"
16. Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect
17. Negative proof fallacy: that because a premise cannot be proven true, that premise must be false
18. Package-deal fallacy: when two or more things have been linked together by tradition or culture are said to stay that way forever
19. Propositional fallacies:
20. Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true.
21. Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true. Has the form if A, then B; B, therefore A
22. Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B
23. Quantificational fallacies:
24. Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion
25. Illicit conversion: the invalid conclusion that because a statement is true, the inverse must be as well
26. Proof by example: where things are proved by giving an example
27. Syllogistic fallacies are logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.
28. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
29. Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative
30. Fallacy of four terms: a categorical syllogism has four terms
31. Illicit major: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion
32. Illicit minor: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is undistributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.
33. Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed
34. Categorical syllogism: an argument with a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises
35. Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural ("formal") flaws.
36. Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam)
37. Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
38. Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance")
39. Begging the question ("petitio principii"): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
40. Burden of proof
41. Circular cause and consequence
42. Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard)
43. Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)
44. Equivocation
45. Fallacies of distribution
46. Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
47. Ecological fallacy
48. Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum)
49. Fallacy of the single cause
50. Historian's fallacy
51. False attribution
52. Fallacy of quoting out of context
53. False compromise/middle ground
54. Gambler's fallacy: the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events
55. Incomplete comparison
56. Inconsistent comparison
57. Intentional fallacy
58. Loki's Wager
59. Lump of labour fallacy (fallacy of labour scarcity, zero-sum fallacy)
60. Moving the goalpost
61. No true Scotsman
62. Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented
63. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
64. Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium)
65. Psychologist's fallacy
66. Regression fallacy
67. Reification (hypostatization)
68. Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
69. Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
70. Suppressed correlative: an argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible
71. Sunk cost fallacy
72. Wrong direction
73. Faulty generalizations:
74. Accident (fallacy): when an exception to the generalization is ignored
75. Cherry picking
76. Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole
77. Dicto simpliciter
78. Converse accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter): when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for
79. False analogy
80. Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
81. Loki's Wager: insistence that because a concept cannot be clearly defined, it cannot be discussed
82. Misleading vividness
83. Overwhelming exception
84. Spotlight fallacy
85. Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance.
86. A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion
87. Ad hominem: attacking the personal instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.
88. Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force", "appeal to the stick"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party
89. Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true
90. Association fallacy & Guilt by association
91. Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
92. Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party
93. Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
94. Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
95. Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason
96. Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
97. Appeal to flattery: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support
98. Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer
99. Appeal to novelty: where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern
100. Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad lazarum)
101. Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam)
102. Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)
103. Appeal to tradition: where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind it
104. Chronological snobbery: where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held
105. Genetic fallacy
106. Judgmental language
107. Poisoning the well
108. Sentimental fallacy: it would be more pleasant if; therefore it ought to be; therefore it is
109. Straw man argument
110. Style over substance fallacy
111. Texas sharpshooter fallacy
112. Two wrongs make a right
113. Tu quoque
114. Conditional or questionable fallacies
115. Definist fallacy
116. Slippery slope
I expect to see a lot of logical fallacies between now and November, and I am planning on occasionally making fodder of certain poorly thought arguments.
I hope to help take some of the baby steps into beginning a new Age of Reason!
Here are a formal list (thanks to Wikipedia):
Formal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious due to an error in their form or technical structure. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.
1. Appeal to probability: because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.
2. Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion must necessarily be false.
3. Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
4. Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
5. Conjunction fallacy: assumption that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one.
6. Correlative based fallacies
7. Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none
8. Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible
9. Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises
10. False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several
11. If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question
12. Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis)
13. Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process
14. Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one
15. Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is "good" or "right"
16. Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect
17. Negative proof fallacy: that because a premise cannot be proven true, that premise must be false
18. Package-deal fallacy: when two or more things have been linked together by tradition or culture are said to stay that way forever
19. Propositional fallacies:
20. Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true.
21. Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true. Has the form if A, then B; B, therefore A
22. Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B
23. Quantificational fallacies:
24. Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion
25. Illicit conversion: the invalid conclusion that because a statement is true, the inverse must be as well
26. Proof by example: where things are proved by giving an example
27. Syllogistic fallacies are logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.
28. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
29. Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative
30. Fallacy of four terms: a categorical syllogism has four terms
31. Illicit major: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion
32. Illicit minor: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is undistributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.
33. Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed
34. Categorical syllogism: an argument with a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises
35. Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural ("formal") flaws.
36. Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam)
37. Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
38. Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance")
39. Begging the question ("petitio principii"): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
40. Burden of proof
41. Circular cause and consequence
42. Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard)
43. Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)
44. Equivocation
45. Fallacies of distribution
46. Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
47. Ecological fallacy
48. Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum)
49. Fallacy of the single cause
50. Historian's fallacy
51. False attribution
52. Fallacy of quoting out of context
53. False compromise/middle ground
54. Gambler's fallacy: the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events
55. Incomplete comparison
56. Inconsistent comparison
57. Intentional fallacy
58. Loki's Wager
59. Lump of labour fallacy (fallacy of labour scarcity, zero-sum fallacy)
60. Moving the goalpost
61. No true Scotsman
62. Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented
63. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
64. Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium)
65. Psychologist's fallacy
66. Regression fallacy
67. Reification (hypostatization)
68. Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
69. Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
70. Suppressed correlative: an argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible
71. Sunk cost fallacy
72. Wrong direction
73. Faulty generalizations:
74. Accident (fallacy): when an exception to the generalization is ignored
75. Cherry picking
76. Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole
77. Dicto simpliciter
78. Converse accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter): when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for
79. False analogy
80. Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
81. Loki's Wager: insistence that because a concept cannot be clearly defined, it cannot be discussed
82. Misleading vividness
83. Overwhelming exception
84. Spotlight fallacy
85. Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance.
86. A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion
87. Ad hominem: attacking the personal instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.
88. Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force", "appeal to the stick"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party
89. Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true
90. Association fallacy & Guilt by association
91. Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
92. Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party
93. Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
94. Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
95. Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason
96. Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
97. Appeal to flattery: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support
98. Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer
99. Appeal to novelty: where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern
100. Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad lazarum)
101. Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam)
102. Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)
103. Appeal to tradition: where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind it
104. Chronological snobbery: where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held
105. Genetic fallacy
106. Judgmental language
107. Poisoning the well
108. Sentimental fallacy: it would be more pleasant if; therefore it ought to be; therefore it is
109. Straw man argument
110. Style over substance fallacy
111. Texas sharpshooter fallacy
112. Two wrongs make a right
113. Tu quoque
114. Conditional or questionable fallacies
115. Definist fallacy
116. Slippery slope
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)