Monday, June 02, 2003
Sunday, June 01, 2003
How come only two international events cause major demonstrations: Economic conferences and wars?
Saturday, May 31, 2003
See the comments under this post on Marduk's weblog for my take on realpolitik.
Friday, May 30, 2003
Frontpage Update:
You may notice that I have added a link to Joseph Liebermann's presidential campaign. I am endorsing Liebermann in part because he is the only Democratic candidate who took a strong stand for Gulf War II. I am also endorsing him because he will not continue the fiscal irresponsibility of Bush. I believe Liebermann's personal social views on issues such as abortion are very conservative, but from his statements, I think he regards the government as not being a means to enforce personal beliefs. Liebermann also understands what it will take to win the war on terrorism, and I can trust him to be supportive of Israel. In 2004, the first year I will be able to vote, I hope to cast my vote for Joseph Liebermann.
You may notice that I have added a link to Joseph Liebermann's presidential campaign. I am endorsing Liebermann in part because he is the only Democratic candidate who took a strong stand for Gulf War II. I am also endorsing him because he will not continue the fiscal irresponsibility of Bush. I believe Liebermann's personal social views on issues such as abortion are very conservative, but from his statements, I think he regards the government as not being a means to enforce personal beliefs. Liebermann also understands what it will take to win the war on terrorism, and I can trust him to be supportive of Israel. In 2004, the first year I will be able to vote, I hope to cast my vote for Joseph Liebermann.
What is Sharon Doing?
A Theory
Haven't posted in a while, but you can expect more posts in the future. Here's my post, based on a comment I made on the IsraelInsider boards.
Assuming that Sharon doesn't believe the Road Map will lead to peace, here is one interpretation of Sharon's actions. I think he expects that the Palestinians will not follow the road map and crack down on terrorism. Sharon will make any temporary gesture that will appease Mazen, and when the PA does not stop the terrorism, he will declare that the Oslo Accords are dead, and that the PLO and all associated groups cannot or will not stop anti-Israel violence in exchange for independence. Therefore, it would be impossible to negotiate any more. The next step will be the reoccupation of the West Bank and the complete and total expulsion of the PLO. This may be Sharon's game, and I leave it to you to judge if it is a dangerous one.
A Theory
Haven't posted in a while, but you can expect more posts in the future. Here's my post, based on a comment I made on the IsraelInsider boards.
Assuming that Sharon doesn't believe the Road Map will lead to peace, here is one interpretation of Sharon's actions. I think he expects that the Palestinians will not follow the road map and crack down on terrorism. Sharon will make any temporary gesture that will appease Mazen, and when the PA does not stop the terrorism, he will declare that the Oslo Accords are dead, and that the PLO and all associated groups cannot or will not stop anti-Israel violence in exchange for independence. Therefore, it would be impossible to negotiate any more. The next step will be the reoccupation of the West Bank and the complete and total expulsion of the PLO. This may be Sharon's game, and I leave it to you to judge if it is a dangerous one.
Friday, May 16, 2003
The door to government largesse swings both ways for "small businesses."
Somehow I don't see this showing up in the Nation or the National Review anytime soon. Forget the Wall Street Journal. The only thing I want to add, is that in focusing on whether small businesses will benefit from Bush's tax cuts, Michael Kinsley ignores the big story: that MCT has duplicitly spent a decade bilking or lobbying for tax breaks from all sides of the aisle. Example:
Somehow I don't see this showing up in the Nation or the National Review anytime soon. Forget the Wall Street Journal. The only thing I want to add, is that in focusing on whether small businesses will benefit from Bush's tax cuts, Michael Kinsley ignores the big story: that MCT has duplicitly spent a decade bilking or lobbying for tax breaks from all sides of the aisle. Example:
October 1996. Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp holds a rally at MCT. Ted Martinez hands him a document asserting that almost a third of MCT's payroll goes to paying federal, state, and local taxes. In his speech, Kemp makes it "half."
October 1995. Giant defense contractor TRW announces that it has won a $185 million contract from the Air Force, which it will share with two "small disadvantaged business" including MCT.
Matthew Miller makes a point about how Bush can be defeated that I hadn't gotten around to posting. (see the May 14 column in the archive) Choice bit:
I recommend reading the rest.
Just noting that sometime in the next couple of days I will post a retrospective on Gulf War II. In the meantime, you are well-advised to read Lt. Smash.
One key to Bush's electoral strategy is to sustain his image of "compassion." It's what pulls a chunk of pivotal independent voters his way, people who otherwise might not support Bush if they discovered the compassion was a hoax.
But Democrats are on their way to exposing this hoax. If the eventual Democratic nominee wants to cover today's 41 million uninsured, for example, and Bush wants to cover 6 million because he'd prefer to use the money to cut taxes for the well-off, that difference is stark and can be hammered home.
I recommend reading the rest.
Just noting that sometime in the next couple of days I will post a retrospective on Gulf War II. In the meantime, you are well-advised to read Lt. Smash.
Thursday, May 08, 2003
Salaam Pax is back!
Monday, April 14, 2003
See a picture of my deceased dog Shelli, on Jay Caruso's Pet Blogging Day.
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Recommended reading on why going to war in Iraq was a morally compelling choice.
And may I note that the number of civilian casualties given are probably overestimations.
And may I note that the number of civilian casualties given are probably overestimations.
Sunday, April 06, 2003
Good column by Colbert I. King.
Saturday, April 05, 2003
Should this man be on television?
Today (April 5th) on MSNBC's coverage of the war in Iraq, Michael Savage said that in a suicide bombing of two women, the reason that their were US casualties is that the soldiers came close to the van because the woman was screaming. He said that the people really to blame for the deaths are the New York Times and liberals for spreading the idea that the troops need to be compassionate to the Iraqi, and implied that if the US soldiers hadn't had compassion and tried to help the women, the deaths wouldn't have happened, so it is all the liberals fault.
To be honest, this is my best recollection of a small piece I caught around 4 PM EST, but if this makes any sense to you and sounds like something other than the ravings of a lunatic, please e-mail me.
Friday, April 04, 2003
The Qualities of Good Opinion Writers
I haven't posted much in the last few weeks because I've been busy. I also have no real interest in blogging about what little there is to blog about Gulf War II. So here is a post that has nothing to do with that.
The three elements of persuasion:
Pathos: Appeals to empathy, sympathy, stereotypes, prejudices, and perhaps religious beliefs.
Ethos: Use of ethics to persuade reader.
Logos: Use of logic to persuade reader.
The best opinion writers use logos and some degree of ethos to make their point. The worst rely on some form of pathos.
A good writer will build his argument logically from the facts, and will dicuss the ethics he is working under when discussing a morality-related issue, such as abortion. If you are going to write about an issue of morality, tell the reader why you have your ethical position on the subject. You have no chance of getting somebody who doesn't share your viewpoint on a moral issue to read your writing about a facet of the issue, if they don't trust or understand your reason for having the viewpoint. Your ethics are effectively your terms of debate on moral issues, and if a reader who does not share your moral standpoint doesn't know what they are, they will likely not bother to try to understand your position.
When using reasoning and logic, there are three cardinal sins: logical fallacy, intellectual dishonesty, and lies. Logical fallacies consist of non sequiturs, ad hominen attacks(actually a subset of pathos), catch-all explanations, and several other types. For more information, read this, an excerpt from an excellent book by the late-Carl Sagan. Intellectual dishonesty is usually only apparent upon analysis of an argument. It can be the exclusion of contrary facts, the taking of a quote out of context, the misrepresentation of statistics, vague conclusions and confusing logic, or possibly plagiarism. And lies, of course, consist of three types: lies, damn lies, and lies about statistics.
Check this weblog again tommorow for a discussion of the traits of bad writers, and more on writing well.
I haven't posted much in the last few weeks because I've been busy. I also have no real interest in blogging about what little there is to blog about Gulf War II. So here is a post that has nothing to do with that.
The three elements of persuasion:
Pathos: Appeals to empathy, sympathy, stereotypes, prejudices, and perhaps religious beliefs.
Ethos: Use of ethics to persuade reader.
Logos: Use of logic to persuade reader.
The best opinion writers use logos and some degree of ethos to make their point. The worst rely on some form of pathos.
A good writer will build his argument logically from the facts, and will dicuss the ethics he is working under when discussing a morality-related issue, such as abortion. If you are going to write about an issue of morality, tell the reader why you have your ethical position on the subject. You have no chance of getting somebody who doesn't share your viewpoint on a moral issue to read your writing about a facet of the issue, if they don't trust or understand your reason for having the viewpoint. Your ethics are effectively your terms of debate on moral issues, and if a reader who does not share your moral standpoint doesn't know what they are, they will likely not bother to try to understand your position.
When using reasoning and logic, there are three cardinal sins: logical fallacy, intellectual dishonesty, and lies. Logical fallacies consist of non sequiturs, ad hominen attacks(actually a subset of pathos), catch-all explanations, and several other types. For more information, read this, an excerpt from an excellent book by the late-Carl Sagan. Intellectual dishonesty is usually only apparent upon analysis of an argument. It can be the exclusion of contrary facts, the taking of a quote out of context, the misrepresentation of statistics, vague conclusions and confusing logic, or possibly plagiarism. And lies, of course, consist of three types: lies, damn lies, and lies about statistics.
Check this weblog again tommorow for a discussion of the traits of bad writers, and more on writing well.