Perhaps the longest sustained non sequitur ever.

There are many sides to the gun-control debate that is raging right now, and I don't mean that there are sides that are for greater regulation and sides against (thought that is also true).  What I mean is that some are arguing for banning this sort of weapon but not that; others are arguing that high-capacity magazines should be regulated rather than the guns themselves; others are interested in discussing background checks rather than criminalizing possession.  One of the more interesting--and more subtle--parts of the debate has to do with the term 'assault weapon'.  The term is hazy, and often mistaken for a synonym of 'automatic'.  In fact, the current legal definition (at least in practice) includes semi-automatic weapons.  This, however, may lead one to think that an assault weapons ban would include all semi-automatic weapons.  However, many (most?) handguns are also semi-automatic (which simply means that the gun automatically loads a new cartridge after firing).  It seems clear that part of the gun-control debate will have to include a clearer categorization of gun-types (this would be a good idea even if no new legislation follows).  Maureen Martin posted an article at the Daily Caller last week explaining intelligently the problem with the current legal nomenclature regarding guns.  You would think the natural conclusion of such an article would be that we need to sort out the classification of gun-types before we discuss regulation.  Instead, what follows does not follow at all (hence, the non sequitur in the title of this post).

Martin may be correct, but usually what is contained must be mentioned in the premises--otherwise your conclusion is entirely irrelevant.  Nevertheless, her article contains no statistics concerning gun restrictions and violence, gun restrictions and mass murder, gun restrictions and gun murder rates.  She finishes my asking us to "carefully consider overly simplistic cures."  I think I'll take her advice and carefully and with consideration ignore her article.

Gun debate begins with reason.

The week and  half since the shooting in Newtown has been a hazy fog of half baked arguments regarding gun control and prevention.  The conversation (if you can call it that) has been cacophonous, with every side of the debate speaking to his or her own concerns without addressing the concerns of the other participants.  Some are afraid that their guns will be taken away--as if there is a real risk that the Second Amendment will be repealed (and as if anyone is actually calling for such a repeal).  Others are suggesting that teachers be armed.  The NRA is calling for armed guards in our schools, claiming that new gun regulations won't make any difference--after all, there are so many other weapons Lanza could have used to commit his crime (maybe a crossbow?).  Still others are pointing out that there were armed guards at Columbine, and that that did not prevent the Colorado massacre.  Finally, Lindsey Graham doesn't think there is anything he or his fellow lawmakers can do to prevent a massacre.

The problem is that no one has set out the ground rules of the debate.  That is to say, when one claims that gun-control won't work, they are obliged to first indicate what working means.  To argue that it won't have prevented Newtown is nonsense since Newtown has already occurred.  To argue that armed guards didn't prevent Columbine is likewise facile to the point of being meaningless--Columbine did occur.  The question must be set out clearly, and it must be agreed to, before a fruitful conversation can take place--and that question can only be: will new gun-control laws reduce the number of these sorts of shootings (an perhaps reduce gun-violence altogether)*.  Anyone who argues that gun-control laws would not have prevented Newtown is being disingenuous and should be dismissed outright.

*To be sure, the question has address, eventually, whether or not such restrictions violate the Second Amendment.

Diagnosing a killer.

The last seven days have been occupied by attempts to diagnose the Newtown killing.  Is it a gun problem?  Is it a mental health problem?  Is it a family values problem?  Westboro Baptist thinks gay marriage was the cause.  Megan McArdle thinks we've failed our children by not teaching them to bum-rush a shooter.  Charlotte Allen took second best to McArdle's stupidity--but just barely.  Her diagnosis was that the amount of damage caused by such killers could be reduced significantly if our elementary schools employed more men.  She may be right, but the solution sounds a little like trying to address your body odor problem by simply staying at home--it addresses the symptoms but ignores the cause.  However, Allen's response today pushes her incomprehension to a new level.  At the end of her apologia, she has a look at the Newtown Public Schools website (which she mistakenly refers to as the Sandy Hook web site), disparagingly noting that their safety page contains a bunch of links to anti-bullying web sites.
We don't yet know if Lanza was bullied, but bullying is often a factor in these kinds of shootings.  Indeed, bullying--even on Facebook--is its own serious problem that needs to be addressed--or has Allen forgotten Amanda Todd.

Look who's talking!

"How can you tell me smoking is bad for me when you smoke two packs a day?"  "Simple, because it's true."  Hypocrisy is a moral failing, not a logical one.  This is the example I use to explain one of the lowest sorts of logical fallacy (though it has a fancy Latin name): tu quoque.  John Nolte uses precisely this fallacy to introduce his discussion of the role the media plays in motivating shooters such as Adam Lanza.

Though this be one of the lowest forms of fallacy (in my opinion, to be sure), it is not the only fallacy committed by Nolte in this same post.  If you don't believe Nolte's claim that the promise of media fame contributes to the actions of a Lanza, you "simply [don't] want to believe it."  Nolte makes no argument here, he simply attacks the motivation of a hypothetical detractor--a type of ad hominem fallacy, though I cannot decide if it is a sort of poisoning the well or circumstantial (I'm open to suggestions).  In addition, Nolte bifurcates on the question of media coverage, suggesting that the media should ignore such news events altogether.  He could have made a very reasonable case for a policy that would call for news outlets to not show the face or mug shots of alleged shooters (incidentally, his article begins with a huge head shot of Lanza).  Instead, he calls for a media blackout.  Indeed, his comparison between the role of guns and the role of the media fails to distinguish between final cause or motive and instrumental cause.  Without such a distinction, the comparison is meaningless.

So, Jesus and a dinosaur walk into a bar...

Breitbart.com is up in arms today at the NYT editorial page for including this advertisement.  According to Breitbart contributor John Nolte, the ad is "Christian Mocking" and disrespectful.  I cannot resist, however, pointing out that literalism (reading each word of the Bible as literally true) is not a Christian doctrine--at best it is evangelical.  More importantly, it is incredibly stupid and intellectually lazy--and a recent invention.  The Church Fathers (for example Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa) did not believe that the creation story in Genesis was meant to be taken literally (as the former's Hexaemeron and the latter's De opificio hominis witness).  One can be a devout, orthodox Christian without believing that god created the world in six days (or that the brothers of Yahweh (the Elohim) copulated with human women creating a race of giants (the Nephilim) (Gen. 6:4)).

In the wake of tragedy...

...and after the grief, we begin to diagnose.  Was the killer insane?  Did he have a motive?  Was he bullied?  What role did his family life play?  What role did gun laws in his region play?  Some of these will be answered in time.  Others will remain unclear.  What is clear is that there can be no effective treatment/prevention without a proper diagnosis.  Certain commentators will present extremely ill-considered preventative measures in part because they haven't the patience for diagnostics; to wit, Newsweek's Megan McArdle suggests we teach children that is it best to rush the gunman in these and similar situations.  This will reduce the number of casualties.

Others will turn to god for answers.  Certainly this is a less ill-advised reaction.  Nevertheless, god can be used to make rash (to say the least) diagnoses.  After Westboro Baptist threatened to picket Sandy Brook Elementary, claiming, as they always do, that the massacre was the direct result of homosexuality, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson has followed suit.

Never waste a good tragedy.

Notice the relation between the first tweet and the last. 

Some people just can't resist trying to score a political point.

Daily Drudge

This story is a riot.  It's also a spoof--This is That is satire.  But don't tell Drudge--he's reporting it as if it is news.

Bill O'Reilly is anti-Nicene!

David Frum accuses O'Reilly of denying Nicea (the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ) even while defending Christmas in the war on Christmas.  It's not often you find a theological conflict of this sort in modern political media.  I wonder, is O'Reilly an Arian, a monophysite, and adoptionist?  We'll have to get to the bottom of this--you deserve answers.

CORRECTION!

Dear reader(s),

Though it was unintentional, I must apologize for misleading you.  I recently claimed in a blog post that Mitch McConnell is the worst negotiator ever.  However, this implies that one day a worse negotiator may join the senate.  Instead, in the interest of accuracy, I should have said, "Mitch McConnell is the worst negotiator possible."  This week the senate minority leader actually lost a negotiation with himself.  As I've already noted, POTUS has been calling on congress to relinquish control over the debt ceiling.  McConnell (among others) has been dragging his feet over this, despite the fact that he proposed a bill in 2011 which would have had precisely this effect.  On Thursday, believing that senate democrats would oppose such a bill, McConnell called for a vote on the McConnell plan.  Harry Reid agreed to an immediate up or down (simple majority) vote.  McConnell was assuming that Reid would baulk, showing disunity among democrats and especially between congressional democrats and the White House.  When Reid agreed, McConnell had not choice but to filibuster his own bill--a bill for which he himself had called the vote.  The full story here, and here, and here, and here.  Video here.

The minority has no rights.

Hopefully the title of this post grabbed your attention.  It doesn't mean what you think, and I am going to try and explain as part of this post.  The outgoing 112th congress is the worst ever.  This is not hyperbole, it is actually measurable (though there is room to dispute the criteria).  In 1948, Harry Truman dubbed the 80th congress the "do nothing congress".

Nevertheless, the 80th congress passed more than 900 bills, while the 112th passed fewer than 200(even when Newt Gingrich was speaker and Bill Clinton president, congress managed to pass more than 300 bills).  Part of the problem with the current congress is their abuse of the filibuster.

Simply put (because it is a bit more complex that this) filibuster forces a 60/40 majority on certain bills, rather than the usual simple majority of 51/49.  The filibuster is often defended on the grounds that it defends the rights of the minority.  You must keep in mind that, in this instance, we are not speaking of visible minorities or ethnic minorities or religious minorities.  We are simply speaking of the party that won the fewest seats in the Senate.  One might argue that they are an ideological minority (Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or progressives), but that reasoning would be specious--these are accidental minorities.  Rather, these minorities are 'minor' precisely because they could not convince enough people to vote for them.  For better or for worse, it means that they have to compromise more than the majority party. This is not a prejudice, the way it would be were we speaking of a gender minority--it is simply an effect of the electoral process (there is always a winner and a loser).  So, the next time you hear the phrase "the rights of the minority" in the context of filibuster reform, know that this is just nincompoopery.

Here's some more reading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/05/17-bills-that-likely-would-have-passed-the-senate-if-it-didnt-have-the-filibuster/

"WaPo's @JRubinBlogger kicks DeMint on way out"

The mixed metaphor notwithstanding (kicking you when you are down + letting the door hit you in the ass on the way out), Byron York's tweet was misleading.  It makes it sound as if DeMint lost his seat or was fired.  In fact, he's moving on to a better paying job at the Heritage Foundation.  Regardless of what you think of DeMint or or the Heritage Foundation, Rubin's blog post was intelligent and spelled out the ways that DeMint has failed to serve conservatives (in Rubin's opinion).  I can imagine some dissent from Rubin's position, but such should be accompanied by facts, arguments, something.  Instead, Mark Levin simply told her to go to hell.

 

Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, resorted to punctuation.  Instead of showing how Rubin is not a true conservative, she used scare quotes to make sure that we know that Malkin does not consider her far right enough.  Too bad, this could have been an interesting conversation.

The epitome of disingenuous journalism.

I have no problem watching a show presenting ideas with which I disagree.  But I am on the lookout for bad logic, bad procedure, lying and disingenuousness.  Greta Van Susteren nabs some pretty influential guests (whatever you may think of their policies), and one would think the show would be informative for that reason.  I don't watch it all the time, so I will not make a general statement about the show.  But I've begun to notice a pattern of disingenuousness that this clip from December 4 takes to an extreme.  First, instead of asking her guest, Rick Santorum, his opinion of POTUS' fiscal cliff offer, she asks Santorum to argue in favor of the deal.  This is a classic straw man--of course Santorum is not going to give the strongest version of the argument (he likely doesn't know it).  So, knocking it over should be a piece of cake.  A conversation regarding Santorum's position would have been interesting and informative--asking him to defend it is a cheap attempt and the trappings of fairness.  In addition, Van Susteren had the chance to correct Santorum on an obvious error.  When he discussed filibuster reform, he claimed that POTUS wanted to "change the rules of the senate to make 51 votes all that is necessary to pass a bill in the US senate."  Regardless of how you feel about filibuster reform, this would not represent a change--this is the current rule in the senate.  The filibuster is the exception to that rule.  Again, a discussion as to why Santorum is not in favor of filibuster reform would have been interesting--but not if it is firmly founded on a falsehood.

Words are your friends.

Some conservatives have their eyes on how congress spends its time (and your money).  It is not uncommon for congress to spend unnecessary time on ridiculous legislation when they should be considering more important matters.  Yesterday, congress voted (almost unanimously) to remove the word lunatic from all legislation.  Here's how Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin reacted:

Granted, there are more pressing issues right now (though they too could be solved rather quickly and easily--as they no doubt will be when congress does it's homework the night before the fiscal cliff deadline).  Nevertheless, I can easily imagine instances where the word lunatic would be inappropriate in legislation.  To be clear, when I say inappropriate I do not mean offensive.  Rather, I mean entirely inaccurate.  Words have meaning, and when we make legislation regarding medical conditions using terminology which is not recognized by the medical community problems will arise.  As for reports that the word idiot has been allowed to remain in the wording of legislation, this is a term everyone understands.

Science, religion and education.

I think it is absolutely imperative that the Bible be taught in schools (indeed, I do teach portions of the Bible at the college where I work).  It should be taught, however, in religion classes or in literature classes.  The Bible is one of the most influential texts in the whole of western history, and should be treated as such.  It is not, however, a science book (nor do any of its authors really make such a claim for it), and, hence, should not be used in science classes.  Apparently the Indiana state legislature agrees, since Rep. Dennis Kruse was unable to pass his legislation that creationism be taught alongside evolution in science classes.  But Kruse will not quit.  Instead, he's decided there is more than one way to skin a cat.  His newest proposal, which he calls the "truth in education" bill, will allow students to ask questions in class, challenging teachers to prove what they are teaching.  Why hadn't we thought of that before?

Mitch McConnell, worst negotiator ever!

As I've noted many times in recent weeks, the debt ceiling is a chimera.  Actually, it's not just a chimera, it's a chimera that was created by the US and that legislators are using to scare the public.  POTUS and Tim Geithner have now inserted the debt ceiling into the fiscal cliff talks.  The response of Greta Van Susteren and Sarah Palin was to compare such an eventuality as giving debt ceiling responsibility to POTUS to giving him a limitless credit card.  This was an incredibly uninformed response, but neither here nor there since neither of these women is a policy maker or legislator.  However, this week Mitch McConnell chimed in with the same (false) analogy:

The analogy is, of course, demonstrably false, and we should assume that McConnell knows it's false.  So why would he make such a claim?  It's part of the pissing contest over the fiscal cliff.  It simply looks bad to give your opponent anything, no matter how insignificant.  This is a terrible tactic for negotiating.  If you have something entirely meaningless (both to yourself and in itself) that someone else wants, and for which someone else will give you something in exchange, you take that deal--that is a successful negotiation.  What McConnell is doing is more akin to throwing a tantrum.

Homeland is a terrible soap opera.

I cannot let this Homeland phenomenon go.  I don't mean the show itself; I mean the fact that people actually like it. 

Apparently people like the show so much that they are mad when an episode falls short of their expectations.  The problem is that their expectations are impossible to understand.  After all, how can you please an audience that finds the romance between Carry--a bipolar top spy in the CIA (and the CIA had no idea she is bipolar)--and Brody--an ex-POW turned terrorist and Muslim convert--"compelling", as Lyons claims.  Lyons refuses to give Homeland the benefit of the doubt--after all, she gave the benefit of the doubt to Lost, The X-Files, and Prison Break as was burned each time.  Lesson learned?  No, because the lesson is not that Lyons should not give the show the benefit of the doubt, but rather that Lyons watches some really shitty shows.

Obama says US economy "poised to take off".

POTUS has been making claims that the US economy is poised to take off.  Meantime, Michelle Malkin of Twitchy.com and others on Twitter are calling the statement laughable.

While the economy may not take off, it seems it is indeed poised to do so if the deficit is any indication.  The deficit is shrinking at the fastest rate since WWII.

I am not attributing this fact to Obama or the WH.  Nevertheless, this seems like a good position from which to take off.  I have no doubt that Congress and POTUS can find a way to screw this up, but calling the statement laughable is a little disingenuous.

(Incidentally, consumer confidence and business spending are both up).

Debt ceiling, again.

I've posted recently about the debt ceiling--this week Greta Van Susteren interviewed Sarah Palin regarding the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling.  Both reacted to Timothy Geithner's request that the task of reviewing and raising the debt ceiling be given to the president.  Palin and Van Susteren agreed that that would be tantamount to giving president Obama a credit card with no limit.  Now Boehner and Fox News are showing their indignation over Giethner's suggestion.  "Congress is never going to give up this power," the House Speaker told Fox News Sunday.  Boehner doesn't understand the debt ceiling any more than Van Susteren or Palin.  First, it is not a power, it's a responsibility--the US gains nothing by raising the debt ceiling (except that we guard our credit rating); we do not get more money out of the situation.  Second, congress already shirked this responsibility (which resulted in a downgrade of the credit rating of the US).  

Debt ceiling-what it's not.

It's not a credit card with no limit, as Greta Van Susteren and Sarah Palin suggest toward the end of this video.  Van Susteren's outrage (shared by Palin) over the idea that POTUS might take over the responsibility of raising the debt ceiling (subject to approval by congress) is incredibly mis-informed.  Raising the debt ceiling is largely a matter of optics--congress regularly reviews (and raises) the ceiling simply to remind themselves of how much they owe (of our money) before they think of borrowing more.  Whether or not the US can borrow more money has absolutely nothing to do with the debt ceiling--though if the international community of lenders sees that we are so irresponsible as to not review and raise our debt ceiling, they may be disinclined to lend to us.  In addition, the idea of taking the debt ceiling review out of the hands of congress was suggested my Mitch McConnell in 2011.

As far as the first half of the video, Leno is being held up as the only example of a journalist over at CBS with enough balls to call for answers regarding who changed the talking points on Benghazi before Ambassador Rice went on air.  Unfortunately, Leno's balls are not as impressive as his tardiness--the intelligence community has already indicated that they were responsible.  Maybe Leno missed the same meeting McCain missed.

Creationism and the economy.

Bill Nye makes the connection between science, creationism, politics and the economy.  Rubio is not only wrong about the age of the earth (since when does Rome teach literalism?), he's also wrong about the impact of such thinking on the future of the economy.