David Brooks, arguing that sequestration has put government spending well below ideal levels for sustainable economic culture:
Right now, we are the North Korea of fiscal policy.
That’s laying it on pretty thick. Though, given the way Republicans talk about Obama being a socialist, it may be the only way to cut through the nonsense.
Matt Purple’s got a great change of subject for Republicans concerned about election futures (HERE). When there are laments about how shallow the Republican bench for 2016 is beyond Christie and Rubio, he’s got a new topic of conversation:
Let’s step onto the 2016 chessboard, no matter how premature it might seem. Republicans certainly have their problems. But focusing obsessively on them obscures the woeful state of affairs on the other side of the aisle.
Or better, focusing on the woeful state on the other side of the aisle obscures the Republican problems.
Sometimes when you make an analogy, you really just show how little you understand. Or, perhaps, how little you want to. Charles Cooke at NRO thinks that taxing ammunition at a higher rate, perhaps at 50%, is not just bad economic policy, but is an infringement on basic rights. He makes this point with an analogy.
When it comes to our basic rights, the rule of thumb is that as little as possible should be put in the way of their exercise. The Second Amendment is often treated differently from the other component parts of the Bill of Rights, but it damn well shouldn’t be. Unless you consider that the right to bear arms is less important in a republic than is the right to vote — which I most decidedly do not — then putting a special tax on firearms is no less outrageous than putting a tax on voting. Why one but not the other?
Notice, first, that this is an argument that, as we say in philosophy, proves too much. If we’re really to take the conclusion seriously, then it should be that we shouldn’t tax gun or ammunition purchases at all. If there’s no taxing voting, then there’s no taxing guns and gun-related stuff.  His argument isn’t one that proves that we shouldn’t tax ammo at a high rate, it’s that we shouldn’t tax it at all.
Second, notice that Cooke thinks that gun-rights are more important than voting rights. I wonder what he thinks of Canada. A real democracy? Germany or England? If you click his link, there’s a paywall for the whole article — but he does answer one question. With another question. To the challenge why does he need military style firearms? His reply is:
A better question: “Why don’t you want me to have one?â€
Yep. His argument is pretty much that his possession of a firearm ensures that his voting rights can’t be taken away. Seriously, though, who’s he gonna shoot if his voter registration card doesn’t get recognized at the polling station?
Third, and finally, isn’t the difference between voting and buying guns and bullets is that with the latter, you’re purchasing a product? It’s a financial exchange of goods and money, one that the government can tax as necessary. It’s not that the argument by analogy proves too much, it’s that the analogy isn’t appropriately framed.
Mallard Fillmore, that’s who.
Well, I should say, actually: Who loves to attribute the ad baculum? This seems a very strange sort piece of communication, one that were it actually true or believed to be true, wouldn’t actually be performed in this fashion. That is, if Bruce Tinsley really believed that the President would bomb him for opposing his agenda or other democrats or for thinking that Nancy Pelosi isn’t attractive (WHUH?), he’d order a drone strike. Or would be willing to threaten one… would Tinsley write a version of this cartoon? Surely not. So what’s this cartoon actually communicating?
Mark Steyn’s lead post at NRO today was an argumentative (and organizational) trainwreck. Here’s just one of the fallacious lovelies. Steyn observes that lefties have in the past been against marriage, as a kind of anti-bourgeois bit of posing. And now the lefties want marriage for homosexuals, now as a kind of ennobling and civilizinginstitution. He poses the dilemma for them:
Which of these alternative scenarios — the demolition of marriage or the taming of the gay — will come to pass? Most likely, both.
I like the fact that you can have an inclusive ‘or’ in ordinary English, but this one seems wrong. First, it seems that the two features are at least prima facie inconsistent — if marriage is demolished, then it won’t play the taming function it’s supposed to play. Right? Second, are those the only two options or consequences? How about gay unions going on as they have for years and years, but now with legal protection from the state?
Scarequotes are a form of downplayer (I’d posted on them and what I call the scarequote exercise earlier HERE) — you use them when you invoke the vocabulary of the opposition, but to call attention to how false the vocabulary is. And so, when you introduce the opposition’s experts, you call them “experts,” and thereby you are on record for holding that they are only so-called experts. It’s a form of indirect discourse, like sarcasm or irony. But it’s the club-instead-of-scalpel form of indirect discouse. Now check out George Neumayr’s post over at the American Spectator and his use of the scare quote to address those who support gay marrige:
Were the people on their side, they wouldn’t need to doctor “social science†to justify their propaganda. They wouldn’t need to use judicial activists to undo democratic results. They wouldn’t need to ignore the written Constitution in favor of a “living†one.
Plenty of regimes that no longer exist once thought themselves on the “right side of history.â€
There’s plenty more, but it would require more work contextualizing than it’s worth. Here’s the weird thing: most of it doesn’t actually make sense. Take the first use of scare quotes. Unless Neumayr doesn’t think there’s any legitimate social science, the claim that doctored “social science” is being used by the opposition is a form of double-dipping. Why not say just ‘doctored social science’? What does doctoring so-called social science do? In fact, that seems counter-productive for all sides.  The same goes for the “right side of history” downplayer, too. Nobody he’s invoking thought they were only on the so-called right side of history. Notice further that Neumayr’s thoughts aren’t clarified by adding the scarequotes — you can get the message that he thinks the social science is illegitimate, that the written constitution is preferable to the doctrine of a living constitution, and that those who believe they are on the right side of history are regularly wrong. In every case, scarequoting in attributing thoughts to others confuses what’s so-called and what’s being attributed. Scarequoting like that is just sloppy writing.
I’ll perform the scarequote exercise from earlier below, taking the last few sentences from my previous paragraph.
Notice further that Neumayr’s “thoughts” aren’t clarified by adding the scarequotes — you can get the “message” that he thinks the social science is illegitimate, that the written constitution is preferable to the doctrine of a living constitution, and that those who believe they are on the right side of history are regularly wrong. In every case, scarequoting in attributing thoughts to others confuses what’s so-called and what’s being attributed. Scarequoting like that is just sloppy “writing”.
Now that’s how you use a scarequote! And, again, notice that it’s mostly just cheapshots.
Ignoratio. Charles Cooper, arguing yesterday to defend California’s Proposition 8 before the Supreme Court, embraced the old strategy of invoking unknown harms to come from allowing gay marriage. [Transcript HERE] Justice Kagan asks Cooper if allowing same-sex marriage hinders state interests. Cooper responds:
]Your Honor, we — we go further in — in the sense that it is reasonable to be very concerned that redefining marriage to — as a genderless institution could well lead over time to harms to that institution and to the interests that society has always — has — has always used that institution to address.
Kagan then asks Cooper to clarify. She asks:
What harm you see happening and when and how and — what — what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples, how does this cause and effect work?
And then Justice Kennedy jumps in to encourage Cooper to concede that there are no actual harms done:
Well, then are — are you conceding the point that there is no harm or denigration to traditional opposite-sex marriage couples? So you’re conceding that.
But Cooper won’t back down. Just because he can’t name any harms or articulate how allowing gay marriage would cause heterosexuals not to marry, or have kids, or raise them right… won’t prevent him from saying bad things will happen.
The first one is this: expert acknowledged that redefining real-world consequences, and that it is impossible for anyone to foresee the future accurately enough to know exactly what those real-world consequences would be. And among those real-world consequences, Your Honor, we would suggest are adverse consequences.
But consider the California voter, in 2008, in the ballot booth, with the question before her whether or not this age-old bedrock social institution should be fundamentally redefined, and knowing that there’s no way that she or anyone else could possibly know what the long-term implications of — of profound redefinition of a bedrock social institution would be. That is reason enough, Your Honor, that would hardly be irrational for that voter to say, I believe that this experiment, which is now only fairly four years old, even in Massachusetts, the oldest State that is conducting it, to say, I think it better for California to hit the pause button and await additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing.
First, a rule about properly run ignoratio. The argument from ignorance runs that because we don’t have evidence that p, not-p follows. There are two related conditions for using the form appropriately. In one case, it’s right when the principle that were p true, we’d already have clear evidence for it is true. For some things, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The second condition is when those arguing for p have the burden of proof — that is when p’s being false clearly yields worse consequences from not-p being false. So when there are known harms to come from one error (taking p to be true when it is in fact false) but none clearly coming from another (taking p to be false when it is true), p has the burden of proof.
Now, take the SCOTUS case here. Who has the burden of proof? It seems, given the way the case is being handled, that the question is whether Proposition 8 denies rights to a group of people. If it does, then people have their rights stripped from them if the court strikes down the prior rulings holding it unconstitutional. If it doesn’t, then if the court upholds the prior rulings, then rights have been extended in a case where it’s not necessary. Those are the two errors possible.  Which is worse? The former. Waving one’s hand and trying to imagine worse consequences doesn’t change that.
Enough about fallacies to close. Now a moment about moral reasoning. And conservatism. I simply abhor the way the conservatives argue about gay marriage. John’s last post shows the deep mendacity of the movement, and this moment in front of the court is another case of the moral cowardice shown by those against marriage equality. Since when do conservatives think that sacrificing the rights of a few to protect the bounty of the many is really acceptable?
Kyle Peterson at The American Spectator reviews Sarah Palin’s speech at CPAC. It’s classic euphemism meets iron man (See one of John’s posts on iron manning HERE):
Sarah Palin hit all the laugh lines in her speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday afternoon, bringing the audience to its feet perhaps a half-dozen times. At points, Palin simply jumped between one-liners.
Jumping between one-liners means free-associates for laughs. And Peterson means that in a good way. Well, as good as you can mean by that. And when did steal the show come to take the place of upstages all? Oh, and here’s the obligatory Orwellian moment when Palin expresses just how serious she is:
“We’re not here to dedicate ourselves to new talking points coming from D.CWe’re not here to put a fresh coat of rhetorical paint on our party,†she said. “We’re here to restore America, and the rest is just theatrics.â€
Yes, says the person with no political agenda beyond talking points and who simply jumps between one liners.
Jeffrey Lord’s post at The American Spectator about the “Theocratic” bent of “The Left’s” obsession with bans on things that are bad for us or are bad for the environment ends with a great flourish. Lord’s analogy is to the theocracies of old that banned things like subversive books for theological reasons. But since liberals ban things, they must be like the theocrats, too:
The very people who shriek the loudest about the danger of an American theocracy based on religion — something that has never happened under the Constitution, nor can it — are well on their way to creating the secular version of just that.
Lord’s case: liberals want to ban sugary drinks, fracking, excessive use of salt in pre-prepared foods and restaurant fare, plastic bags, and the Bible. What’s weird about the case is that the reasons liberals use to ban these things are reasons that all in the debates can understand as reasons: public health and the shared costs of obesity, environmental health and clean water, more public health, plastic waste and environmental destruction with plastic bags, and separation of church and state. Those are all bans that benefit all by protecting us from consequences. Banning books doesn’t do that. That’s why we use ‘theocracy’ as a bad word for a government.
So Lord’s analogy is silly to begin with. But to call a secular order committed to public reasons a ‘theocracy’ is simply a manifest contradiction.
George Whittman, at the American Spectator, has a suggestion to Bill Clinton: Stay Home. Apparently, Clinton makes for accommodationist foreign policy with Muslims. Clinton opined that Islamic terrorism in Northern Nigeria was caused by economic troubles, and he suggested economic development of the North as a means of reducing the trouble. Whittman rebuts Clinton:
Clinton must have known that his statement was a direct attack on Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan who had earlier responded sharply to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour when she suggested poverty and corruption were behind the rise in Nigerian terrorism. President Jonathan had vigorously replied that Boko Haram was “definitely not a result of poverty.…Boko Haram is a local terrorist group.â€
Note, by the way, that the form of that explanation is as follows: q does not explain p, because p. Apparently, being an Islamic terrorist is causa sui. Silly Clinton.