Comment on, “Political Statistics” by Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell / Political Statistics
04/16/2011
http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/political-statistics.html
Reading Thomas Sewell’s editorial printed in the April 13th edition of West Newsmagazine made me shrug my shoulders and smile. As I read a little further, my smile turned to a grimace and finally, my shoulders drooped and my grimace gave way to an expression of contempt and resignation.
The shrug and smile was derived from Mr. Sowell’s elucidation of the folly ofFlorida’s assumption of a 7.75% return on pension fund investments, when historically the return has been 2.6%. His labeling of this assumption as a political game involving manipulation and deception to hide the states financial condition seemed to be a logical conclusion.
The grimace came, when a couple of paragraphs later, he compared President Obama’s health care reform act, which he referred to as “Obamacare,” as do most detractors of the plan, to the problems he pointed out in the Florida Pension plan. Referring to the assumption, “that congress will cut half a billion dollars out of Medicare to finance Obamacare,” as “the same nonsense,” he implied the same political gaming, manipulation and deception of which he had accusedFlorida.
This once again reminded me that the disingenuous use of rhetorical slight of hand has become business as usual even in the rapidly shrinking segment of non-entertainment editorial news. Then, my feelings of contempt and resignation registered on my face.
Under a bright light I’m sure most readers see the glaring difference in these assumptions. The difference being; there is no choice to be made byFlorida’s pension fund managers that will guarantee a 7.75% return on its pension fund, but congress does have a choice to cut “a half a billion dollars out of Medicare to finance Obamacare.” The rhetorical device used by Mr. Sowell attempts to attach the “ah ha” and “gotcha” from Florida’s rate of return assumption to the congressional choice assumption of President Obama’s health care reform act. Apples and oranges.
So, is this little detail really important? If Mr. Sowell’s reader’s value logically constructed arguments that are meant to withstand facts and critical thinking, then yes, this little detail is important.
Robert Bogie
A Comment on, “Peace process prolongs Mideast war. by David Frum.
03/18/10
David Frum’s article entitled, “Peace process prolongs Mideast war.” was published on the CNN Website on March 15, 2010. Mr. Frum presents an argument; that conflict in the Mideast, which he narrows to conflict between Arabs and Israel, would have resolved itself long ago if outside intervention (e.g. outside participants in the so-called peace process) had not occurred.
The article can be viewed at: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/15/frum.mideast.peace/index.html
Mr. Frum does provide an interesting and thought provoking idea about the impact outsiders have and have had in attempting to facilitate an enduring peace in the Mideast. My tagging it as, “interesting and thought provoking” does not indicate any opinion on past, current, or future claims pertaining to borders, sovereignty, or actions by any Mideast nation.
I would like to express my opinion on the rhetorical device used to further his argument. Right or wrong, Israel’s existence to a large part has been dependent on U.S. military technology. This favorable access to U.S. military technology has had a major influence on the power equilibrium between Israel and the Arab (and Persian) countries. By adjusting the lens to encompass only part of the big picture, Mr. Frum’s argument appears to have a degree of logical underpinning. Widen the view to include both past and present military aid to Israel, (for that matter, military aid from any outside country to any Mideast country) the remaining logic looses much of its relevance.
Arguing that the peace process plays only to muted victories that leave hope with the defeated, thereby leaving an ever smoldering adversary willing to rearm and again challenge the victor, is questionable when the origin of the conflict itself was created from a stacked deck. As long as military aid continues to flow from outsiders into the Mideast, the logic of dropping the peace process and, “letting one of them finally win” has no solid grounding.
Mr. Frum’s article is, as I said before, interesting and thought provoking, but to rig the camera in order to hide problematic parts by way of exclusion is disingenuous. If you believe in your position, then all of the facts should be welcome.
Robert Bogie
A Comment on, “Guess who really pays for health care?” by Ed Rollins.
03/08/10
Mr. Rollin’s article entitled, “Guess who really pays for health care?” was published on the CNN Website on March 3, 2010. It takes issue with President Obama’s push for health care reform.
The article can be viewed at: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/03/rollins.health.who.pays/index.html
Mr. Rollins presents an argument that is critical of President Obama’s health care reform bill. Mr. Rollins starts off with four claims, which after stating, he makes a point to declare them as facts. Let’s take a look at them.
1) “If you have health coverage, under our reform bills you are going to pay more and get less.”
This statement is so general that I find it incredulous. Maybe he’s right, that any and everyone who has health care coverage will have to pay more than they are paying now and will, without exception, get less coverage. I’m a little skeptical.
2) “If you are one of the 45 million elderly or disabled people on Medicare, you are going to get less”
My same conclusion.
3) “There is no such thing as free medical care.”
I completely agree. But what’s his point?
4) “Somebody has to pay! And in the end it is going to be you.”
Again, what’s his point? Has anybody ever said that nobody has to pay? And do the “you’s”, who currently have health care coverage, have to pay for it?
These statements are made in absolute terms, with the intent to bulldoze over any critical thinking on the part of the reader. A rational argument about the costs and benefits of Obama’s health care reform bill is pushed aside in favor of disingenuous rhetoric.
Mr. Rollins continues his attack by citing dollar amounts, population numbers, and trends. I won’t dispute any of his data or conclusions. Quite frankly, I don’t know if they’re right or not. But I do know, that after reading Mr. Rollin’s statements, that he specifically labeled as facts, I will read the rest of the article with a very critical eye.
If Mr. Rollins truly believes in his position, he shouldn’t have to rely on rhetoric designed to deflect the reader from critically analyzing its value in order to make the position credible.
Robert Bogie
A Comment on, “Closing the new frontier”, by Charles Krauthammer.
Dr. Krauthammer’s article entitled, “Closing the new frontier” was published in the Washington Post on February 12, 2010. It faults President Obama’s budget cuts that effect NASA and the U.S. Space Program.
The article can be viewed at:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/12/closing_the_new_frontier_100276.html
Dr. Krauthammer’s first criticism claims that President Obama doesn’t understand the importance of space. This is a broad statement that needs to be supported by an argument of equal breadth. Instead, throughout the entire article, his argument focuses solely on manned space flight, rather than the much more encompassing exploration of space.
Regardless of whether or not Obama’s understanding of the importance of space is adequate for him to make an informed decision about the amount of money the U.S. will spend on space exploration, Dr. Krauthammer could present his argument without the shifting of perspective for rhetorical advantage. Dr. Krauthammer uses his argument about Obama’s treatment of manned space exploration as being indicative of his treatment of space exploration in general. This and his rhetorical use of the hot button tag of, “liberalism” detracts from the ability of the reader to form a decision on the issue.
Dr. Krauthammer’s entire argument is based on the notion that manned space exploration in the next decade is necessary. Maybe it is, maybe it’s not. I’ve heard articulate arguments on both sides. If an entire argument is being based on the necessity of manned space flight, then either give the reader a few lines explaining that necessity or predicate the argument on the assumption that it is necessary.
As for Dr. Krauthammer’s concern about the cost of allowing a Russian monopoly on manned space access, how would the costs of the U.S. continuing its program compare to the price Russia may demand. The U.S. and Russia have many mutual economic, political, and scientific interests and manned spaceflight costs will not exist in a vacuum. Dr. Krauthammer may be right, but he presents no legs to his argument aside from a basic ceteris paribus economic principle.
As for the science of space travel, I can only assume Dr. Krauthammer either has the scientific knowledge concerning specific spaceflight capabilities and what stepping stones are essential. Regardless of his knowledge, (Dr. Krauthammer is a smart and educated person) some of the statements about private sector capabilities and propulsion physics problems are pretty bold, particularly when left unsupported any by expert reference.
Expressing my opinion about the prudence of cutting funds for manned space exploration is not my endeavor. My comments on Dr. Krauthammer’s article are about the rhetorical liberties being taken that detract from the ability of the reader to form an opinion or to alter an existing opinion in an informed way. If one believes in the strength of one’s position, rhetorical slight of hand should not be necessary.
Robert Bogie
A Comment on, “Government can’t squelch free speech”, by Matt Welch.
Matt Welch’s article entitled, “Government can’t squelch free speech” was posted on CNN on January 21, 2010. It defends the Supreme Court ruling concerning the political activities of corporations. At the heart of the controversy is free speech.
The article can be viewed at: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/21/welch.free.expression.campaign/index.html
Regardless of where the reader stands on the issue, I think that the author presents his argument with basic conclusions that would be better off left to the reader.
Free speech is not a zero sum idea. Like capitalism or democracy, free speech lies along a spectrum that has absolutes on both ends that are neither attainable nor desirable. On one end of the spectrum you have a point that would allow anyone to say anything at any time and the opposite end would not allow anybody to say anything at any time. To use the old adage about shouting fire in a theater places perspective on one end, just as the current state of oppression in North Korea has its place at the other. When presenting an argument for or against the “Citizens” ruling, using language like, “Free speech really does mean free speech”, the academic argument moves toward an emotional appeal. This emotional appeal detracts from the readers ability to reach a logical conclusion; a logical conclusion that best serves the goals of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Regarding Mr. Welch’s statement, “The American people are not sheep”, again, there is the spectrum from definitely sheep to definitely not sheep. Rhetoric, whether in an academic paper or a late night television advertisement selling cleaning products, influences everyone. It’s whether you bite the hook or just change your course ever so slightly determines where you are on the sheep spectrum.
If Mr. Welch’s rhetorical use of, “Free speech really means free speech” and “The American people are not sheep”, defines the readers starting point in making their conclusion on the issue, then the readers part in making this decision has been diminished.
One last note, on the spectrum of journalistic integrity that ranges from screaming bumper stickers to vacuum sealed academics, Mr. Welch’s article does reside well on the high side. But getting the balance of free speech that best serves the people is too important not to question any hint of rhetorical appeal.
