I am so fed up... (Illogic Edition)

Begin rant...

I am so fed up with people who construct their arguments to support the opinion they already hold. That means I'm pissed at about, say, 90% of the people on the internet. Actually, it's less because most commenters don't bother to build an argument--they just blurt out their insult or canned talking point.

This comment really irked me today:

You could blame Romney's Free and Strong America PAC for much of the Tea Party's 2012 failings. The PAC contributed to many local level Tea Party victories in 2010, amplifying and distorting their voice. Now he cashes in, calling upon those elected officials' endorsements, and the Tea Party finds itself bamboozled, nationally.

You can blame Romney's deeper 2012 coffers for buying the lackluster support of all rank and file conservatives who won't consider any candidate without an Obama-like war chest.

Blame Romney's book for obfuscating his A list advisers' plans long before he was out to shake hands with 2011 Americans...

The four years Romney has spent fundraising and engineering disingenuously conservative policy are at the root of this sour primary. Strike at the root: blame Romney.

Analysis

Let's step back from the particulars of this argument, and characterize it.

This is a case of someone deciding it's all Romney's fault, and then finding a subset of facts that might, in a pinch, support that opinion.

• So there are mentions of specific facts: Romney's PAC, Romney's book, Romney's large campaign fund.

What isn't here are all the facts that don't support the argument:

• The other rich contributors
• The likely hypothesis that maybe Romney doesn't control the Tea Party
• The supposition that various Tea Party leaders make their own decisions and are personally responsible for them

Notice that you have to ignore all the facts and likely possibilities that don't support your argument.

To defeat such an argument, look for the facts that aren't there. Point out how they overwhelm the paltry facts that are there. And for good measure, call out a person who bases their opinions on a gerrymandered set of facts, as I did here:

XXX's argument is ludicrous. It is constructed with the sole purpose of bashing Romney, not gathering facts and trying to understand what is actually happening. In other words, it has nothing to do with seeking the truth.

/End rant

 More solid than his argument

 

Likeable Santorum

Family members who see this title aren't going to believe it. I've been a vocal opponent of Santorum because of his culture warrior stances against working women, non-nuclear families, gays, reproductive choice, and even the choice to have a small number of children or no children in your marriage.

I've seen in the debates that Santorum has learned to cool it with this kind of talk. Now, he'll love his son even if he's gay, he declares. I don't see sincerity in these statements because he's never come close to disavowing the intrusive policies he advocated as a senator.

So I'm flabbergasted to find myself liking some of Santorum's message. He wants to be a candidate for hard-working blue collar families "left behind by both parties." He says that the Dems just want to take care of them, which isn't what they want. They want opportunities to get good, respected work after completing a solid high school education.

Now, it's not as though Santorum has a realistic plan to make this happen against the tide of economic forces. But it's a contrast to the general Republican focus this past fall on mythical "job creators" whose taxes MUST NOT BE RAISED. It's also a contrast with Gingrich's message, also just after the South Carolina primary, where he spends most of the time bashing elites in this country and the "radicalism" of Obama.

Congratulations, Newt and Rick. Rick climbed up from lowest place in my estimation, and Newt rocketed himself down there. Is this what counts as progress in the GOP? Sigh.



Same day update: Santorum lets a questioner bash Obama as a Kenyan illegitimate tyrant, and then bravely ... agrees with her, in part. He never corrects her. He looks uncomfortable with his sin of omission, skipping a beat or two before he describes how Obama completely ignores the Constitution. Oh, the stream of lies from politicians' mouths!

Update 3/19/12. Santorum with equal cowardice stood by as a preacher told all non-Christians to leave the country. But he didn't clap, or presumably inhale either. Good job, Rick.

Funny moment: Politics trumps engineering

I had a chuckle (not LOL, but a bit of amusement) over this comment on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline:

"The president of the United States should have said, 'Yes, TransCanada is willing to start at the northern border and southern border of the U.S., go three states on both sides of (Nebraska) before they get to us, and we will be ready by the time they get here.'" --Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman (R)

So this governor thinks a huge construction project should start before they know where the mid-section will go.  I guess he's not an engineer or a finance guy.

But he's trying really hard to be a good Republican.

 

Extra: This looked like a detailed article, though definitely from an anti-pipeline viewpoint. Also, I like what this commenter wrote:

"I have no problem with a “go slow” approach on a multi-billion dollar project with almost infinite variables. Let’s do it right the first time, even if that means making sure we’ve got the whole process defined before we begin."

The man who should be king

 
... actually, he should be president. That is my gut response to this video of Chris Christie. (Disclosure: I have a weakness for unvarnished talk, preferably with occasional profanity.)

At 10 minutes in, he gives Obama the same advice I'd give Obama if I could get on Meet the Press. Take Simpson-Bowles off the shelf (saying the politician equivalent of "I made a mistake"), and back it hard around the country and in Congress.

Watch the whole video. Highlights are that Christie would join the ticket with Mitt Romney, how he's handled canceling a huge transportation project, and how he's lowering New Jersey's highest-in-the-country state taxes.

This straight-shooter's pick out of this sorry bunch of GOP candidates: Romney. Republicans should be listening. Ron Paul supporters should be listening too.

Update 1/22/12. I love this guy. Partial headline from Google news:

Gov. Christie nominates two for state Supreme Court including gay African...

If you like Ron Paul...

...I think you'll like this interview with Alan Simpson. The same truth-telling, some self-effacement (so pleasant on a high-Newt day like today). Enjoy!

An ecomonics question: Equity vs. debt

Business schools have been preaching that equity is equivalent to debt. I'm not an economist, so perhaps I shouldn't venture into this debate, but I can't avoid strong feelings on this. Equity is not equivalent to debt. They have distinctly different consequences. (Edit: See a more expert contradicting argument below. Not a surprise. As I said, perhaps I shouldn't venture into this.)

Equity doesn't drive you into bankruptcy or foreclosure.

If there's an equivalent disadvantage in equity, I hope someone will tell me what it is. However, I wonder what could be equivalent, since bankruptcy can be existential crisis that leads to the extinction of a business. Can equity end a business? Can equity force a foreclosure? I don't see how.

I know about "opportunity cost" and how debt can allow you to take advantage of promising opportunities, but that's not equivalent to the danger of bankruptcy. I'm open to an explanation, but it has to be a compelling one.

Your minority status: Political Edition

Over two months ago, I started writing about the fear of the long-time majority (in the US, it's whites) at becoming a minority. I really liked addressing the issue, because it's something visceral  in several ways. It's a thread that's underneath some of the surface issues, such as immigration. But it's also a powerful gut issue that's raw and emotional and not directly discussed.

This post was slated to be the political complement, focusing on how to behave civilly as a no-longer-majority. I thought it would be easy to write. After all, I'd figured out what I wanted to say about being a minority in the social sphere. Could it be that much harder to figure out how to be a minority in the political sphere?

As it turns out, YES, it is much harder. My rules for being a minority boiled down to:

• Don't act like you own it (the town, the city, the country).
• Live and let live.

This is good advice for political minorities, but it's not enough. Political groups need more operational guidance. For example, what does live and let live mean to political parties? Does it mean don't shoot your opponents or don't argue with them?

Live and let live isn't a rule that works in a zero-sum game, and some aspects of politics are zero-sum: I win the election and you lose. My group defeats the legislation your group wants.

So I failed to come up a set of rules for being a well-behaved political minority. But I had some interesting thoughts on the way to ultimate failure:

• Pre-1994, Republicans had been the minority party in Congress for decades. They were used to it, and knew how to be a well-behaved minority. They could carp at Democrats, embarrass them, try to score points, try to block them, convert a few to their side, but it wasn't all out war.
• Republicans have been in power more often than out of power over the past 30 years. However, it has been a tenuous hold. When they lose an election, it may feel like they're losing on two fronts--politically and demographically. This is probably partially mistaken, since the GOP is in no danger of slipping into permanent political minority status.
• Don't picket the homes of political actors. Everyone, even a politician, deserves a quiet, unbesieged home. 
• Elsewhere, making your voice heard is an important right. Progress doesn't usually come from excessive politeness. That's part of the reason I failed to formulate a set of rules. Too polite equals no results.

Not the homes... or funerals

Extras:
What we want to say to political minorities: 

"If we want to fire Obama, then you social cons need to get in the back seat where you belong, stay quiet and don’t mess things up for us between now and election day. Just show up to vote…you had your day in the sun and it gave the Dimocrats a Senate super-majority. Maybe this time you’ll learn your lesson and in exchange Romney will nominate a pro-life HHS guy. Deal?" - Wall Street Journal comment

Update 2/9/12.  I remember some other tenets for political minorities.

• Don't be the tail wagging the dog. If your views are in the minority, grow your cause. Don't try to prematurely force your views upon the group or the country. That doesn't mean you have to keep quiet (don't keep quiet), but don't hijack the organization, every discussion, or take hostages to force your issue.