Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Policy oppositon argument strategy

Friday, April 17th, 2009

I love argumentation; I have created a basic argument strategy for opposing policy proposals.

This post is essentially a “knowledge deposit” for myself and others who may want to bookmark this post for future interest.

The 1976 Presidential election Ford-Carter debate

Famous debate: Ford-Carter '76 Election

The structure

Simply put, it goes like this:

1. We don’t think there is a problem
2. We don’t agree the problem is caused by what you say it i caused by
–› But even if there was a problem and it was caused by what you say
3. We don’t agree with the way you go about solving it
4. We don’t agree with the world that you would be seeking to create by:
- a. intervening at all in the problem
- b. acting in such a way to solve the problem

Courtesy: Jason Love

Courtesy: Jason Love

An example

For instance, a policy debate on a smoking ban. The proposition says that there should be a smoking ban in public places because it will effectively prevent negative health consequences for those around the smoker.

1. We don’t think that there are any health problems related to the behaviour of smoking in public places [your evidence is weak, we see no negative effects]
2. We don’t agree that these health consequences you speak of are linked with passive smoking [they are probably caused by other factors]
-> But even if we agreed that there were health problems related to smoking in public places and the causal link is as you say it is
3. We don’t agree with your banning smoking in public places, for it wouldn’t properly prevent the negative consequences [clearly these negative health consequences, this so-called 'passive smoking' doesn't really exist]
4. We also disagree with the society you would be creating by:
- a. intervening in this problem at all [by your nanny-state legislating]
- b. by acting in such a way to solve the problem [by restricting the liberties of the individuals involved in banning them from smoking]

Usage

You understand that you won’t normally adopt points 1, 2, 3, 4 in a proper debate - though you could, only your argument would be full of “even if”s. For instance, in reality, I would probably adopt:

3. Your ban won’t properly prevent the negative consequences
4a. this is just nanny-state legislation
4b. this would be simply over-involvement on the part of the government, this restricting of civil freedoms

If you would like a further example let me know by responding in a comment! :-)

Obama’s military budget

Saturday, April 11th, 2009

Just to reaffirm my Obama cynicysm, I share this video with you.

Obama’s military and its budget:

Obama’s total defence budget surpasses Bush’s by $20bn.
(The Real News Network)

“The Pentagon is doubling down on its order for the F-35… increasing funding for that jet from $6.8bn to $11.2bn.”
(Guardian)

“The use of unpiloted aircrafts to attack … the Pakistan and Afghan border could be on the increase.”
(BBC)

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgIM0sWQ8SI]

Obama and Change

Friday, April 10th, 2009

I have always been enormously cynical about Barack Obama. In the UK, it is fair to say, we get less involved with ‘emotion politics’ than in the USA. In the UK, I think most of us are more discerning about political hype. We prefer to indulge more in British quietism. At election time, I always thought those who ‘weeped’ at the thought or sight of Obama, the new Holy incarnation Yes-We-Can man, really should just grow up.

Obama on stage, election campaign

What ‘change’?

Obama ran his campaign on ‘change’. The main-stream media have said that Obama has started making ‘radical’ changes to the country; it’s not true. I never believed there would be change. His advisors and close political allies are too similar to those of previous administrations’ for him to affect ‘radical change’, even if he wanted to.

  • Obama’s National Security advisor, James Jones said “I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger”. Henry Kissinger is the man who was largely responsible for the bombing to death of 600,000 civilians in Cambodia between 1969 and 1973, and he is wanted for questioning in France, Chile, and Argentina. (Hitchens)
  • The United States, of course, has a Defence Secretary - which ironically would be better titled War Secretary, for the USA has been on the offensive, rather than the defensive for so many decades. Obama’s Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, served in the same position under George W. Bush, the former Republican President - the administration which of course supported torture, extraordinary rendition, illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the general degradation of international law.
  • Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel is an “Irsael-first” Zionist who served in the Israeli army and opposes meaningful justice for the Palestinians -  an injustice that is at the root of many Muslim people’s loathing of the USA and a catalyst that spawns jihadism - (jihadism: the most obvious recipient of the US’ offensive). (Pilger) The israeli army is opposed on every level to justice for the Palestinians. Recently it was confirmed that Israeli army troops were wearing T-shirts which:
    1. “show[ed] a child in the cross-hairs of a rifle with the slogan: ‘The smaller they are, the harder it is.’”
    2. “portray[ed] a pregnant woman in the cross-hairs and the words: ‘1 Shot 2 Kills.’”
    3. “depict[ed] a soldier blowing up a mosque and Palestinian women weeping over a gravestone.”
    (Metro, 23rd March 2009)
    This is the army that Emanuel served under.

Political inertia

Witnessing political inertia in the USA, it has always seems unlikely that Barack Obama can affect the ‘radical’, ‘real’ change that the media talk of. The US political system allows war criminals like George W. Bush to be harboured, and accept those like Tony Blair into its heart - only recently did Tony Blair share a “prayer breakfast” with President Obama (Pilger).

The system is incapable of moving to a place where proper justice can realised, justice executed upon the most important figures like George W. Bush. I think real change will come. Eventually. It won’t happen just because a new President’s elected, however, for that is not enough of a ‘re-evolution’ - especially if the same figures (e.g. those I listed above) are still at the heart of the system.

Moreover, politicians know what to say, they know how to lie. We know Barack Obama has the most advanced and experienced transition team and is a master orator. All successful politicians, Obama especially, know ‘what to say’ to ‘lure’ individuals in to an argument or ideology (to gain consensus and support). The new article from MediaLens.org focuses on this subject of luring in, and talks about this “art of political seduction - Clinton, Blair and Obama know all about these ‘lures’.”.

Political lying

“Play up your divine qualities; affect an air of discontent with worldly things; speak of the stars, destiny, the hidden threads that unite you and the object of the seduction. Lost in a spiritual mist, the target will feel light and uninhibited.”
(MediaLens, 9th April 2009)

Obama and Divinity

Obama was portrayed as “divine” by the media (or at least they played along with the intentions of Obama’s campaign agents). That’s why I earlier called him a ‘new Holy incarnation’, for he quite literally did “play up … divine qualities”.

A few days ago, I was watching Obama in Turkey where he engaged in a half-hour Q&A session with students, under the watch of the press, watching on the almighty ‘as-soon-as-we-get-any-updates-we’ll-let-you-know’ BBC News 24. For a while I was captivated by his ability to perform oratorically, to lure and seduce his audience (both on screen and in the room). For a moment there, I was lured in myself.

I had to do a reality check, ‘has there actually been real change?’. Well for starters, some of Obama’s first executive orders that (supposedly) close down the US’ secret prisons worldwide, also give the CIA authority to carry out renditions, abductions and transfers of prisoners in secret without the threat of legal obstruction. As the Los Angeles Times explains, “current and former intelligence officials said the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role.”! (LA Times)

The Politics of Bullshit

During the campaign time, Obama spoke many times of Clinton’s lies about her own political record. Yet has more recently “name[d] ‘my dear friend’, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State”! (DailyMail) At least at one point in time then he was a liar (assuming he wasn’t at some point born again into a new understanding of Clinton).

I am left at the conclusion that Barack Obama is an almighty, great lurer (even, liar) who has set a new precedent at manufacturing the “politics of bullshit”, as John Pilger calls it.

Truth is what is required to affect change in the US, truth is re-evolutionary. Obama, is not as truth-telling as he needs to be if he is to bring real change:

“In the time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act”
George Orwell


The Obama and Change poll: vote now


‘It is not possible to predict earthquakes’

Friday, April 10th, 2009

“Major earthquakes can be predicted months in advance, argues UCLA seismologist and mathematical geophysicist Vladimir Keilis-Borok.

“Keilis-Borok, 82, has been working on earthquake prediction for more than 20 years.”

(FuturePundit, 11th January 2004, http://www.futurepundit.com/…)

Scenes from L'Aquila after Monday's earthquake

L'Aquila, Italy after Monday's earthquake

Yet the head of Italy’s National Geophysics Institute dismisses the possibility of earthquake predictions:

“Every time there is an earthquake there are people who claim to have predicted it,” he said. “As far as I know nobody predicted this earthquake with precision. It is not possible to predict earthquakes.”

(Reuters, 6th April 2009, http://www.alertnet.org/…)

“An Italian scientist predicted a major earthquake around L’Aquila weeks before disaster struck the city on Monday, killing dozens of people.

“Italy’s Civil Protection agency held a meeting of the Major Risks Committee [MRC], grouping scientists charged with assessing such risks, in L’Aquila on March 31 to reassure the townspeople.

“Giuliani, who based his forecast on concentrations of radon gas around seismically active areas, was reported to police for “spreading alarm” and was forced to remove his findings from the Internet.”

(Metro, 6th April 2009, http://www.metro.co.uk/…)

“Italians will begin the grim task of laying to rest nearly 300 victims of a devastating earthquake in a Good Friday state funeral.”

(CNN, 10th April 2009, http://edition.cnn.com/…)

The head of the MRC said, “every time there is an earthquake there are people who claim to have predicted it” (Reuters). He infers there are many people like Giluliani then. Perhaps there were many other (qualified scientists) like Giluliani (who made such claims then)? Well, it appears not: there has been no mention of other qualified scientists’ claims.It seems that Giuliani is somewhat alone in his position.

On a moral level, it seems that if there was any chance that Giuliani could have been right, the authorities should have deeply investigated it - to rule out doubt, at least. Moreover, the fact that the authorities actually instigated self-censorship by Giuliani is morally terrible. They should have been collaborating with him, not censoring him.

On a political level one can see why the MRC may want to picture Guiluliani as small, attention-seeking, and an outsider: to minimise the possibility of the main-stream world media saying, ‘could the government have done anything to stop this earthquake’s tragic consequences?’, i.e. a “cover your ass” politic.