The Logic of Ridiculous Quotes

I've been thinking lately about logic and how we misuse it.  I only took one logic class in college and I don't think I was really committed to learning yet at that point.  In fact I remember almost nothing about it.  Sadly.

But I've read up on logic and rhetoric since that time and tried to learn what I can.  I still can't always get a fallacy tagged with the proper name (ad hominem, post hoc, begging the question, red herring, slippery slope...), but I'm trying.

I realize now how important to society is the skill to present information in a coherent, systematic manner.  Alongside that is the flip: the ability to analyze the information coming at us in order to determine it's validity.

Two recent quotes highlight the need for the ability to test the information coming at us.  I discovered both of these today, within a few hours of each other.  Congresswoman Harman's quote is from Thursday, this week, I believe.  The quote from Frances Fox Piven is from December, probably old new to some readers.

From Jane Harman, Congresswoman from California's 36th district, in an interview with The Last Word's Lawrence O'Donnell,  "Every responsible law enforcement person in the country supports this."  (At 34 seconds in the linked video).

This quote follows the Congresswoman's claim that there are too many guns in the hands of ordinary Americans, that there is too much ammunition available, and that clips for rapidly fired weapons hold too much ammunition.  In context I believe the quote refers only to the capacity of what she calls rapidly fired clips. 

Regardless of for or against what Congresswoman Harman is arguing, her argument is rendered useless by her use of the adjective, "responsible."  What defines responsible?  It is a relative term.  Who gets to decide the opinions of which law enforcement persons ought to be deemed responsible.  It tells us nothing about what real proportion of law enforcement people support the law.

Besides the logical gaff, the comment is a huge insult to the many hard working law enforcement people who do not support the Congresswoman's ideals.  It labels any law enforcement person who does not agree as irresponsible.

From Frances Fox Piven, professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York, "You know I don't have data on this, but I am absolutely sure..."  (at the 1:27 minute mark).

In the entire video clip, Ms Fox Piven pigeon holes and insults those Americans who attend TEA parties.  She knows all about what make us poor naive Americans tick.  The whole scant 4 minutes of the video clip is one slam after another against this segment of society.  She starts with a variety of labels: older, white, well-off, unhappy about the direction of America.  (This last one is a surprise.  Is that why people got involved in political activism?  In context, she means that they are naively clinging to "the good ol' days".  The way she describes it comes across as very patronizing.)  She labels us with being unable to deal with the idea of an African American president and an increasingly darkening populace.  She doesn't call us racist.  The accusation is much more patronizing that that.  We are just so, so shaken up by all the changes.  We (us white, old, well-off Americans) just can't function.  

The quote itself is followed by her opinion that the s**ual revolution has so disenfranchised this older, white, well-off demographic that they are fighting back in the from of "their crazy rallies".  That is the WOW point for which she has absolutely no data and yet is absolutely sure. 

OK, so to get beyond the ever so maddening tone of the clip, and back to the logical fallacy,  I don't really think I even have to say anything about it.  I'll just repeat the idiocy, "You know I don't have data on this, but I am absolutely sure..."

I know she doesn't have any data on anything she said in the speech.

I've been to three TEA parties.  We live in a primarily white area of Minnesota.  So yes, our TEA parties are pretty white up here.  Unless we bussed SIEU members in and paid them to hold signs for us, I wouldn't expect anything different in that regard.   Most TEA party patriots find busing people in for rallies and paying them to demonstrate a little disingenuous.

But we are definitely not mostly older.  We are definitely not mostly well-off.

And I don't have any data on this, but I can absolutely guess that if I pulled up some footage from the many TEA parties that have occured around the country, I'd see young people, I'd see Americans of a variety of color, and ethnic backgrounds.  I probably wouldn't be able to tell by looking, but I could absolutely guess that they would live within a wide variety of income levels.

Stickitothemaniosis in Hair and Clothing

I got a new hair cut just before Christmas.  I don't like it.  It's one of those new-fangled shaggy styles.  I know, I know.  It's just a style.  It's cool and hip.  But I'm not cool and hip. 

Besides all that, I like things to look neat, not messy.  I don't allow my kids to wear jeans with holes in them to school.  And ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to pay for or allow them to pay for new jeans with holes. 

But it's not just a neat freak thing.  And I've finally, just in the last five minutes (it's kind of a young philosophy), figured out how to articulate why messy styles bother me.  It seems to stem from a rebellion against what's considered proper.  I'm not saying that everyone who wears holey jeans or has a shaggy haircut is rebellious.  Most of them probably just enjoy being trendy. 

But I would say that the trend toward sloppiness or the urging of messy styles upon consumers by the fashion industry is a rebellion of sorts.  It's analogous to the modern movement in art and literature.  Dada poetry or abstract art.  Yes, such art and literature probably has some deep and meaningful message to the artist.  But there was also a definite and intentional rejection of the forms in the previous styles.

And so with hair and clothing.  Go ahead and wear the holey, shaggy styles if you choose; I'll not hold it against you.   But at least I know now why I don't like such styles

Crock Pot Mustard Pork Roast wtih Cabbage

For those of you haven't heard of Stephanie O'Dell, she in 2008, committed to posting a crock pot recipe each day for the entire year.  And she did it!  But the best thing for those who have to avoid wheat or gluten, is that almost all of her recipes are Gluten Free.  I think maybe only one or two of the entire year's recipes are not.  Because of this blogging feat, she has become a popular guest on daytime talk and cooking shows and she now has published her second crock pot cookbook.  Again, Gluten Free.  She includes recipes for beverages, baked goods, main dishes, specialty foods and even a few non-food novelty items.

Yesterday I made supper based on one of her recipes, Sweet Mustard Roast for Beef or Pork.  It turned out really good.

I linked the original, but I'll share what I did, since, of course, I rarely follow a recipe exactly.  And as usually, all seasoning amounts are estimates.  Sorry.  I just pour into my hand the amount that looks good.  Use your own judgment.

Crock Pot Mustard Pork and Cabbage Recipe

1 small head of cabbage, sliced into largish chunks
2 large carrots, cut into sticks
1 large onion, slices

Put into the bottom of a 6 qt crock pot

Sprinkle liberally with caraway seeds.

1 T salt
1/2 t pepper
1/2 T garlic powder

Combine and rub on 4-5 lb pork roast.

1/2 c mustard
1/2 c honey
2 T vinegar

Pour over roast.

Cook on low for 8-10 hours (I got mine going late; I cooked it on high for 2 hours and then low for 5-6; it was wonderfully tender.)

I served mine with steamed, buttered, slightly sweetened, sweet potatoes.

Neighbors and Tradition

We are blessed with many wonderful people as neighbors.  When I say neighbor, you must remember that my nearest neighbor is a mile away.  Our neighborhood is roughly our township.  Our neighbors live in perhaps a 5 mile radius of us.  We live in a very flat area and can see many of these farm sites from our windows.  If we can't see one or another, it is only because someone else's woods or building is in the way.  So everyone still does really feel like a neighbor.  "They live at that place just over there."  or "Just past Tom's woods, there..."

This morning I started a new and exciting winter exercise plan with my neighbor, Connie.  It was fun to work out with a friend and I hope that the anticipation of companionship will keep me motivated.

As an aside, you might also notice my new ticker.  I've had a love/hate relationship with tickers that I've written about on occasion.  It got too embarrassing for awhile to keep one up, since I wasn't really doing anything.  A ticker that just sits in one spot isn't really much good for anything but guilt.  Hopefully with this new motivation, I'll be able keep my little guy moving.

As I was leaving Connie's house today, her brother-in-law, Gary, pulled in on his snowmobile (they are generally called snow-cats around here, because of our proximity to Arctic Cat in Thief River Falls, or just sleds).  I had a few moments of feeling like the transplant I am as I thought about Gary and his snow-cat.  Most everyone but us has snow-cats.  Most local people use them to get from farm to farm, since most people have relatives at the neighboring farms.  They also might use them to check on cattle or fences during the winter.  And they are also for fun.  Many people start their kids on the small sleds as young as 4 or 5 years of age.

If I had a snow-cat, I might have ridden it over to Connie's instead of driving the car.  Why start a car when something smaller will do? (Four wheelers accomplish the same purpose for locals during the summer months.)  Sometimes I can almost justify the expense.  There are many times I might run over to a neighbor's for something, but then I think to myself that it can wait.  "Don't waste the gas, Mary."

We don't have a shop in which to take care of maintenance.  Our kids don't grow up dinking with tractors or watching the older guys do so, we don't have fences or livestock to check on.  And I guess, much to my kids' chagrin, we don't really have the money to spend on the kind of toy that takes constant expense in gas and maintenance to run regularly.

So see, we stand out a bit.  Others near us probably must live just as frugally as do we.  And yet they have snow-cats and we don't.  It's a difference of "cultural necessity."  For us they seem like very expensive toys.  But for those who grow up here, snow-cats are just a fact of life.  It is as basic as a pick-up or snowblower or plow.

And that's another difference.  We don't have a pick-up.  We have a family van and a sedan.  The sedan is for the errand running when we have few enough people travelling.  It saves gas.  But a pick-up? That's a luxury. Not for most of our neighbors, however.  They need them for work.

So all this ran through my mind as I saw Gary come into Connie's all bundled up in his outdoor gear.  First we heard the approach of the snow-cat.  Then we see him amble in, bundled from head to toe, taking off his facemask as he came around the corner.

Since I was on my way home anyway, I went out as Gary went in.  I was looking forward to smelling the wood smoke from the outdoor boiler (which most everyone around here uses to heat their homes). But instead of the wood smell, which was very nice upon my arriving at Connie's, I got a kind of wood smoke mixed with snowmobile smell. Not bad in itself, but not what I anticipated.

And now I fear, I come another tangent, because I really like the smell of snowmobiles.  For my first six years, I lived in a rural area of Eastern Washington where they also have winter.  So locals do have snowmobiles (they are not snow-cats there).  I remember snowmobiling with my dad and uncle and cousins and I suppose other friends and neighbors.  Because of the fixative power of the sense of smell, I always associate the smell of snowmobiles with those fun times during my very early years.

I can always tell when my teenaged son, Matt, has been out snow-catting with friends, because the mud-room will smell of snowmobile.  And I often pause to take an extra breath.

Weird.

Only A Child

Mama:  Donna, take your diaper off and try to go potty.
Donna:  My potty chair is all apart.
Mama:  Can you put it back together?
Donna:  That thing is gone.
Mama:  What thing?  Oh, I see, the bowl, you mean.  Where is it?
Stella:  Oh, I saw it downstairs.
Mama:  Eeww.  yuck,  What is it doing downstairs?
Donna:  Inge was playing dominoes in it.

Cringe.

Insensitivity and Argumentation

Yes,... well,... I didn't go through sensitivity training at UW Madison.  The University started that requirement during my time there, but it was only mandatory for incoming freshmen, one of which I was not. So I have an excuse; I was never taught, by the correct governmental entity, how to be a sensitive, caring person.

"Where is she heading with this post?" you may ask.

It just dawned on me this morning, that because of the recent tragedy in Tucson, it may seem inconsiderate of me to post two gun related posts on these particular days.  And that may be true.

One might make such an argument.  In all honesty, I did not make the correlation until after the posts were done.  That said, I can't exactly come to apologize for them, or my timing of them, either.  And here's why.

Gun rights did not cause this tragedy.

My enjoyment of the safe and legal use of firearms did not cause this tragedy.

And Steve Lee's music certainly did not cause this tragedy.

Jarod Laughner caused this tragedy.  Blame his mental illness if you want.  Blame his "handler",  the mysterious missing person, if you want.

But as much as I am saddened by the shooting; as much as I feel for those injured and for the families of the dead, you can't blame me or my views.

I pray for the comfort and healing of all involved.

I pray for the healing of our national conversation.

But perhaps my timing of the most recent post might even be put to some good purpose.  The video clip I included portrays well the difference between articulated arguments and angry, attack speech.  It seems to be a popular analysis, that somehow the angry tone of our cultural conversation is to blame for Jarod Laugner's reprehensible behavior.  I don't think anyone ought to make that link, until he has, or until something can be found in his life and writings, that might connect the two .

I'm finding conversation after conversation on the main Stream Media (MSM), on Conservative Talk Radio (CTR), and on the blogosphere either implying (or defending against those implications) that somehow CTR and its said affiliate, the TEA party movement, caused Jarod Laughner to try to kill Gabrielle Giffords.  (And as an aside, why is she consistently seen as the target, anyway?  Has everyone in the media forgotten that a Federal Judge was shot dead.  How do we know he was not the intended target?  But that's another conversation.)

Last I checked, reports were that Jarod Laughner was not political.  There was no indication he listened to talk radio.  He does not claim to be a TEA party patriot.  He does not appear to be aligned with what some might want to call the "extreme" right.  So don't blame us.

Please, no matter upon which side you find yourself politically, or if you prefer to not have a side, as you listen to or read your choice of current events coverage, please remember that there is a difference between senseless name calling or personal attack speech, and a well articulated argument.  An effective argument will include facts on which you will be able to check.  It will include history that is documented.  It will tie its premises together into a logical conclusion.  It is designed to teach or persuade.  Senseless name calling or personal attack speech, are sometimes linked to facts that cannot be checked, or that upon further checking don't hold up.  Sometimes those facts are valid, but they are strung together in a way that is not logically conclusive.  Often attack speech is phrased in such a way to compel the reader or listener feel a certain emotion strongly.  Often it makes a listener or reader feel smug satisfaction.  Mostly, it is just noise.

Our country is at a time of strongly differing opinions.  But difference does not have to be violent.  Discussion does not have to be fighting.  Well made arguments can build consensus.  But only if we listen and think.

And only if we perceive the noise for what it is.

Fun Future of Hunting Clip

The vitriolic name calling in the letter Kevin Hoyt reads, exhibits well how difficult it sometimes is to discuss issues with people from an opposing viewpoint.  I hope I never cling to my stereotypes with such vehemence and senseless attacks against a person. 

But in spite of the silliness of it, or perhaps because of it, the letter makes me laugh every time.

I like the brief statements kids make that add up to a simple but pretty well articulated answer to the ad hominem attack of the letter writer.

Besides the historical, economic, constitutional, and practical arguments presented by the kids, Keven Hoyt finishes up by saying simply, he likes guns.  As a fitting finale, the clip ends by including Steve Lee's "I Like Guns" video.