The Experiment Continues.
(Though, now I'm even more insecure about writing something intelligent; thanks a lot Catalyst!)
In three comments to this space, Catalyst makes one overarching point: the issue being analyzed has arguments "for" and "against" and the development of an opinion based on both sets of arguments is the demonstration of a thoughtful and intellectually honest analyzer (the "analytical scale", as Catalyst refers to it). I could not agree more on this point. I also agree with Catalyst's sentiment that believing something does not make it so. I believe Terry O'Reilly was the greatest hockey player ever in spite of an impressive argument (that obviously ignores "intangibles") to the contrary.
Anyway, for set-up and discussion purposes, let's consider two issues before we get to a more topical third issue:
1. Is the earth round? I gather my own evidence and I develop my own opinion. In this case, there is much more evidence to support that the earth is round than there is otherwise. The analytical scale tips to the earth being round. It is now my opinion the earth is round; I independently came to this conclusion.
2. Does spanking your children when they misbehave make them behave? Maybe there is a correct answer (I think it probably "depends"; I responded "well" to it as a kid; it, or the fear of it, helped control my behavior; some kids may not respond so "well"), but there certainly is less physical evidence available to support the "yes" or "no" opinions than in the earth question, so we are left with availing ourselves of the best (for and against) and most (for and against) information we can, dump it all on the analytical scale and then develop our own opinion. On these squishy issues, there is absolutely a greater chance to be wrong. I, of course, would be swayed by my own experiences as child and parent. Someone who was not struck as a kid and who has no kids may interpret the data differently.
So, is President Bush an idiot? We are not going to argue that today; I'm simply setting up how the analysis could be done incorrectly by proponents on both sides of the argument. A few weeks ago, I finished reading Bob Woodward's "Bush at War". I came away more impressed by the President (and Dr. Condoleezza Rice, by the way). Is Bob Woodward too convenient a source for someone that "wants" to like the President more? Possibly. Is Woodward going to be completely dismissed by his liberal friends because the result (the President is more impressive than we thought) cannot possibly be true so all of the evidence that Mr. Woodward includes in the book to support this concept cannot be true? Will I freely quote pro-Bush comments made by Woodward at the next dinner party I attend that is also attended by the anti-Bush crowd? Yes. Woodward is just one data point in the question, though. Borrowing from Catalyst's suggested format in analyzing a question, President Bush either is or is not an idiot. Whether evidence is ignored or whether smart people argue each side of the answer will not change the fact he is or isn't. Someone expressing an opinion on this topic will do an excellent job if they consider the wide range of arguments "for" and "against" and then concluding. Extremists on both ends of the answer, of course, do themselves no favors if they only look at evidence that supports their view. I'm reluctant to cede ground to someone arguing Bush is an idiot because the people with whom I could have this conversation would cede absolutely no ground that he is not. I suspect these folks have not availed themselves of any material that supports him not being an idiot. You can't be an idiot and fly a military jet. Apparently, you can be an idiot and mislead Sen. John F. Kerry, though.
Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson wrote a nasty race-baiting piece for the Boston Globe today. Yes, he implies that Judge Samuel Alito is a racist and that the Republican Party is made up of a bunch of racists. Real clever stuff.
Anyway, my letter in reply:
Editor,
Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson's vile insinuation that the Republican Party and Republicans are inherently racist goes beyond the pale in his column manufacturing fear of an Associate Justice Samuel Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court (A court seat for privilege . . . , January 14, A15).
Strangely missing from Mr. Jackson's ridiculous stroll down memory lane was the fact that the "conscience of the Senate" and the Dean of Democrats, Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), is an ex-Ku Klux Klan member. Sen. Byrd also holds the ignoble distinction of being the only U.S. Senator to vote against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas for seats on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yes, Mr. Jackson, "memory is irrelevant in a nation" where one major political party so warmly embraces an ex-KKK member.
I look forward to Mr. Jackson's interpretation of Sen. Byrd's vote, which looks like it will be for confirmation. (End of letter.)
Maybe some intelligent Alito stuff tomorrow; I'm trying desperately to get to the abortion issue.
(Though, now I'm even more insecure about writing something intelligent; thanks a lot Catalyst!)
In three comments to this space, Catalyst makes one overarching point: the issue being analyzed has arguments "for" and "against" and the development of an opinion based on both sets of arguments is the demonstration of a thoughtful and intellectually honest analyzer (the "analytical scale", as Catalyst refers to it). I could not agree more on this point. I also agree with Catalyst's sentiment that believing something does not make it so. I believe Terry O'Reilly was the greatest hockey player ever in spite of an impressive argument (that obviously ignores "intangibles") to the contrary.
Anyway, for set-up and discussion purposes, let's consider two issues before we get to a more topical third issue:
1. Is the earth round? I gather my own evidence and I develop my own opinion. In this case, there is much more evidence to support that the earth is round than there is otherwise. The analytical scale tips to the earth being round. It is now my opinion the earth is round; I independently came to this conclusion.
2. Does spanking your children when they misbehave make them behave? Maybe there is a correct answer (I think it probably "depends"; I responded "well" to it as a kid; it, or the fear of it, helped control my behavior; some kids may not respond so "well"), but there certainly is less physical evidence available to support the "yes" or "no" opinions than in the earth question, so we are left with availing ourselves of the best (for and against) and most (for and against) information we can, dump it all on the analytical scale and then develop our own opinion. On these squishy issues, there is absolutely a greater chance to be wrong. I, of course, would be swayed by my own experiences as child and parent. Someone who was not struck as a kid and who has no kids may interpret the data differently.
So, is President Bush an idiot? We are not going to argue that today; I'm simply setting up how the analysis could be done incorrectly by proponents on both sides of the argument. A few weeks ago, I finished reading Bob Woodward's "Bush at War". I came away more impressed by the President (and Dr. Condoleezza Rice, by the way). Is Bob Woodward too convenient a source for someone that "wants" to like the President more? Possibly. Is Woodward going to be completely dismissed by his liberal friends because the result (the President is more impressive than we thought) cannot possibly be true so all of the evidence that Mr. Woodward includes in the book to support this concept cannot be true? Will I freely quote pro-Bush comments made by Woodward at the next dinner party I attend that is also attended by the anti-Bush crowd? Yes. Woodward is just one data point in the question, though. Borrowing from Catalyst's suggested format in analyzing a question, President Bush either is or is not an idiot. Whether evidence is ignored or whether smart people argue each side of the answer will not change the fact he is or isn't. Someone expressing an opinion on this topic will do an excellent job if they consider the wide range of arguments "for" and "against" and then concluding. Extremists on both ends of the answer, of course, do themselves no favors if they only look at evidence that supports their view. I'm reluctant to cede ground to someone arguing Bush is an idiot because the people with whom I could have this conversation would cede absolutely no ground that he is not. I suspect these folks have not availed themselves of any material that supports him not being an idiot. You can't be an idiot and fly a military jet. Apparently, you can be an idiot and mislead Sen. John F. Kerry, though.
Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson wrote a nasty race-baiting piece for the Boston Globe today. Yes, he implies that Judge Samuel Alito is a racist and that the Republican Party is made up of a bunch of racists. Real clever stuff.
Anyway, my letter in reply:
Editor,
Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson's vile insinuation that the Republican Party and Republicans are inherently racist goes beyond the pale in his column manufacturing fear of an Associate Justice Samuel Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court (A court seat for privilege . . . , January 14, A15).
Strangely missing from Mr. Jackson's ridiculous stroll down memory lane was the fact that the "conscience of the Senate" and the Dean of Democrats, Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), is an ex-Ku Klux Klan member. Sen. Byrd also holds the ignoble distinction of being the only U.S. Senator to vote against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas for seats on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yes, Mr. Jackson, "memory is irrelevant in a nation" where one major political party so warmly embraces an ex-KKK member.
I look forward to Mr. Jackson's interpretation of Sen. Byrd's vote, which looks like it will be for confirmation. (End of letter.)
Maybe some intelligent Alito stuff tomorrow; I'm trying desperately to get to the abortion issue.
posted by Zack at 8:25 AM
2 Comments:
You and Catalyst should get a room. Enough with the adulation. I liked it better when you were sniping at each other.
I didn't see the Jackson piece, but not surprised. The image of Judge Alito calmly listening while the likes of the plagerist Biden and loud mouth Chuckie Schumer, and the ever-present Teddy K go on and on with self-serving statements, then the judge awkwardly responds with a thoughtfull-lawyerly response while his wife is in tears is a fitting close to the post-bork era.
Post a Comment
<< Home