Blogs

 

Objective eyes on November: Roundtable - May 11, 2016

Objective eyes on November: Roundtable - May 11, 2016  Roger Bissell, Robert Campbell, and William Scott Scherk look through Objective(ish) eyes at the US presidential election. Get to know the spirit, humour and wit of the three amigos in the first of a series. Presented as an audio-only podcast at Conversations with the Greats | Show notes at November Eyes Notes  

william.scherk

william.scherk

 

GOP Unity: Safe Spaces for Donald Trump doubts and criticism

No particular topic to start this off.  I want to open a space where doubt is okay -- to have disquieting anticipation, to have issues and questions and even fierce criticism. OK to roll.   I will also act as a moderator. The rules that are in place are the same general OL rules, but I intend to be a tight-ass.  Please do not overdo 'personalizing' discussion. Do not attack the character of discussants or otherwise be a  conversational oaf.  There is only one level of appeal. So ... anybody got a nice safe space topic? I have thought about it for a while now, and all I can come up with is a vague theme ... UNITY UNIFY    

william.scherk

william.scherk

 

My name is Mud in this town

To be a real American, you must have a real name. Or not.   I have teeth that want to chew into this whole episode. But I am committed to the aural tradition, and will take these moments with me into the POD.  Perhaps REB is interested in heading down this alley a ways.  It is so depressing a subject, but I think worth the expenditure in sanitizing solution. Where disagreement is starkest -- there is the coal-face of Reason. Together an epistemologically-sound team of technicians can dig out the whys and the wherefores, and solve the equation that disagreement represents. Again, I say too much in the air topside. The excursion into names requires a high-oxygen environment.  There is not enough room to breathe in the thread that will not end ...

william.scherk

william.scherk

 

A Tale of Three Points on a List

Thank you for tuning in. This is my script for responding to a notion put forward on the front porch of OL. I use the blog to form arguments and to analyze statements. Much of my work here is done to pre-load some assumptions. In this case, the prelaoded assumptions are in the quoted material First step, orientation and identification. Think of you and a map in hand, along with a remembered direction. You are in America, where opinions flow fast and hot.  Mark Levin is a radio-jock, a talk-guy, an author. Go look him up on Google. We can pause the tape. Okay, we are back. Now you know about Mark Levin. Or so we thought. There isn't a single Mark Levin. There are three. Okay, this is for You People. 
  The headline says it all.   Roger accuses Levin and two other Hate Club folks of being paid off.  If you go deeper into the article, the warrants for the accusation against Levin are slim if not mere muck-spinning.  Winnowed down, the Levin accusation is that money from Levin books is chunder. But here is is, excised from a Daily Caller article. In that article, bear in mind, the quotes are from Daily Beast and a blog-commenter at Conservative Treehouse. Chunder? “The Senate Conservatives Fund (PAC) purchasing massive quantities ($400,000) of Mark Levin’s books in exchange for favorable candidacy political opinion. Conveniently hidden by the radio host who avoids mentioning the financial conflict created,” the blog pointed out. On Jan. 13, Ben Jacobs in an article published by the Daily Beast headlined “Pay to Play?” noted that Politico, in an article that now appears to have been scrubbed from Politico’s website, reported on how the GOP establishment seeks to buy Levin. The Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), a “conservative” fund founded by former Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina that backed Cruz in his Senate fight against Obamacare, spent $427,000 to buy copies of radio talk show host Mark Levin’s four-year-old book “Liberty or Tyranny” to distribute to donors – a purchase that should have earned Levin approximately $1 million in royalties. Despite his many diatribes against Drumpf broadcast to his national radio audience, Levin hid the fact the son of his fiancé is a full-time staffer for Cruz.   Oh, my.  I will truncquoat a few pellets from this wreath.   The biggest boldest bold claim is this: But, having said that, I must do a bit of recursion: Are there three Mark Levins?  Are there really? Does making a list end the analytic moment? Here is the truncquoated poetry from the above:    

william.scherk

william.scherk

 

Men talk about Abortion

[http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/trumpAbortionTalk.htm] QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women's rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health?   DRUMPF: OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I'm pro-life. Right, I think you know that, and I -- with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that's my stance. Is that OK? You understand?   MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion?   DRUMPF: Well, I have been pro-life.   MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law -- I know your principle, that's a good value. But what should be the law?   DRUMPF: Well, you know, they've set the law and frankly the judges -- I mean, you're going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it's a real tipping point.   MATTHEWS: I know.   DRUMPF: And with the loss the Scalia, who was a very strong conservative...   MATTHEWS: I understand.   DRUMPF: ... this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, "what's the law, nobody knows what's the law going to be. It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins.   MATTHEWS: I know. I never understood the pro-life position.   DRUMPF: Well, a lot of people do understand.   MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it's human life as people see it.   DRUMPF: Which it is.   MATTHEWS: But what crime is it?   DRUMPF: Well, it's human life.   MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?   DRUMPF: Look...   MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.   DRUMPF: It's a -- no, no...   MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?   DRUMPF: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and Conservative Republicans would say, "yes, they should be punished."   MATTHEWS: How about you?   DRUMPF: I would say that it's a very serious problem. And it's a problem that we have to decide on. It's very hard.   MATTHEWS: But you're for banning it?   DRUMPF: I'm going to say -- well, wait. Are you going to say, put them in jail? Are you -- is that the (inaudible) you're talking about?   MATTHEWS: Well, no, I'm asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean?   DRUMPF: I would -- I am against -- I am pro-life, yes.   MATTHEWS: What is ban -- how do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?   DRUMPF: Well, you know, you will go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places.   MATTHEWS: Yes?   DRUMPF: But you have to ban it.   MATTHEWS: You banning, they go to somebody who flunked out of medical school.   DRUMPF: Are you Catholic?   MATTHEWS: Yes, I think...   DRUMPF: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church's position?   MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my Church on moral issues.   DRUMPF: I know, but do you know their position on abortion?   MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.   DRUMPF: And do you concur with the position?   MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question -- here's my problem with it...   (LAUGHTER)   DRUMPF: No, no, but let me ask you, but what do you say about your Church?   MATTHEWS: It's not funny.   DRUMPF: Yes, it's really not funny.   What do you say about your church? They're very, very strong.   MATTHEWS: They're allowed to -- but the churches make their moral judgments, but you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe...   DRUMPF: No, but...   MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?   DRUMPF: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.   MATTHEWS: For the woman?   DRUMPF: Yes, there has to be some form.   MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?   DRUMPF: Let me just tell you -- I don't know. That I don't know. That I don't know.   MATTHEWS: Why not?   DRUMPF: I don't know.   MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.   DRUMPF: Because I don't want to -- I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It's a very complicated position.   MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you're pro-life meaning that you want to ban it.   DRUMPF: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life.   MATTHEWS: I'm not talking about my religion.   DRUMPF: No, no, I am talking about your religion. Your religion -- I mean, you say that you're a very good Catholic. Your religion is your life. Let me ask you this...   MATTHEWS: I didn't say very good. I said I'm Catholic.   (LAUGHTER)   And secondly, I'm asking -- you're running for President.   DRUMPF: No, no...   MATTHEWS: I'm not.   DRUMPF: Chris -- Chris.   MATTHEWS: I'm asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?   DRUMPF: I'm not going to do that.   MATTHEWS: Why not?   DRUMPF: I'm not going to play that game.   MATTHEWS: Game?   DRUMPF: You have...   MATTHEWS: You said you're pro-life.   DRUMPF: I am pro-life.   MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.   DRUMPF: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life.   MATTHEWS: But they don't control the -- this isn't Spain, the Church doesn't control the government.   DRUMPF: What is the punishment under the Catholic Church? What is the...   MATTHEWS: Let me give something from the New Testament, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Don't ask me about my religion.   DRUMPF: No, no...   MATTHEWS: I'm asking you. You want to be president of the United States.   DRUMPF: You told me that...   MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be.   DRUMPF: I have -- I have not determined...   MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you're pro-life.   DRUMPF: I am pro-life.   MATTHEWS: What does that mean?   DRUMPF: With exceptions. I am pro-life.   I have not determined what the punishment would be.   MATTHEWS: Why not?   DRUMPF: Because I haven't determined it.   MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because...   DRUMPF: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life...   MATTHEWS: OK, here's the problem -- here's my problem with this, if you don't have a punishment for abortion -- I don't believe in it, of course -- people are going to find a way to have an abortion.   DRUMPF: You don't believe in what?   MATTHEWS: I don't believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.   DRUMPF: OK, fine. OK, (inaudible).   MATTHEWS: Of course not. I think it's a woman's choice.   DRUMPF: So you're against the teachings of your Church?   MATTHEWS: I have a view -- a moral view -- but I believe we live in a free country, and I don't want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision.   DRUMPF: But then you are...   MATTHEWS: That would be so invasive.   DRUMPF: I know but I've heard you speaking...   MATTHEWS: So determined of a society that I wouldn't able -- one we are familiar with. And Donald Drumpf, you wouldn't be familiar with.   DRUMPF: But I've heard you speaking so highly about your religion and your Church.   MATTHEWS: Yes.   DRUMPF: Your Church is very, very strongly as you know, pro-life.   MATTHEWS: I know.   DRUMPF: What do you say to your Church?   MATTHEWS: I say, I accept your moral authority. In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what's in the Constitution, and we live by that. That's why I say.   DRUMPF: Yes, but you don't live by it because you don't accept it. You can't accept it. You can't accept it. You can't accept it.   MATTHEWS: Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of law, what I'm talking about, and this is the difficult situation you've placed yourself in.   By saying you're pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion. How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life which you call murder?   DRUMPF: It will have to be determined.   MATTHEWS: A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant?   DRUMPF: It will have to be determined.   MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion?   DRUMPF: Well, it hasn't -- it hasn't -- different feelings, different people. I would say no.   MATTHEWS: Well, they're usually involved. Anyway, much more from the audience here at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. We'll be right back.

william.scherk

william.scherk

 

Argument on the Rocks

Fresh from today's headlines -- or rather, fresh from Today's front porch at Objectivist Living. Brief audio introduction to the issues [TBRecorded]     Word People ploys, number 16 and 7 -- spins on "If I understand your points correctly." The double ploy depends on the operation of Compare and Contrast. What is being compared?  To answer that question, one needs to understand the basic ploy parameters of the fallacious reasoning -- in informal English it is known as The Old Switcheroo. In this case, what is being swapped out are words denoted by Turkeyfoot.  More specifically, Integrity. First step to analysis is to listen to the entire TF comment with an aim to understanding and restating his argument or point or points.  Here is the audio:      Not comes ... discussion points ... about integrity? Let's listen to Donald Trump's explanation:   And here is Peter extemporizing with Ellen Stuttle:   Verbatim: Now listen to the approach taken by one discussant. Note the pitfalls of truncation:     I will add a tag here, and somehow jam all this material into a seven-minute podcast. I am thinking of committing the first sin of podcasting again -- over-exhuberance in choosing sound tracks. In this case I am going to give into the thrill of danger, and summon up a new Horror ambiance.

william.scherk

william.scherk

 

William & bigots on the road to Global Warming, scientists say

  These are the kinds of commentary that I know I should give real thought to. Although Michael seems to insult me in one item [see clarification d"oh below], he follows it with a smiley emoticon, so I know it is 'banter.' If I weren't a simple child like Pollyanna, I'd say that insults choke discussion.  But that is for another day and another dollar. Some things just need to sink in.  First, as a boring background, Adam teased this out of me ... MIchael took a bit from this and answered it in his inimitable way.  But let's just say he didn't quote it, since you just read the words anyway, and I cannot be bothered to finick with the quoating software for the moment. That seems to fit your condition ...  and here I though I was one of the guys that Rock! Hmmm.  Deep thoughts. Here was a bit more of my thoughts on defining bigotry.   Tony always triggers thought. This is what started it all off, with Michael answering the question of Categories.   And so, I can answer -- on list -- the final set of questions, bolded for your reading pleasure.  

william.scherk

william.scherk