Beware the argument your opponents cannot win. If your response means that there is nothing they can do to change your mind, then it's not an argument, just a couple of speeches. If your mind can't be changed, then your opinion becomes less rational and more like a gut reaction. Not that gut reactions should be ignored, but they deserve less respect.
Also beware the argument that lets you dismiss your opponent. Even if they are racist, stupid, liberal, religious, or bound to have wrong ideas for any number of reasons, almost always there is something in their argument that you need to think about. It's better to ignore the person and their motivations for making the argument, and focus on the argument itself. I know, it might lead to an outbreak of civil dialogue, but why not try it?
One of the most frustrating things about this whole health care debate is the way each side doesn't answer the pressing questions of the other. People are getting cut off by their insurance when they need it most for dumb reasons. People who work hard can't afford insurance. On the other hand, someone in the government (as opposed to private insurers) is going to decide what counts as health insurance, what gets covered and for whom. Medicare covers lots of people, but it is going bankrupt, is wasteful, people need additional insurance, and is not controlling costs (it might even be fueling some of the fast increases). Anyhow, these questions are treated rhetorically, not substantively, and I'm getting fed up.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Odd couple?
I just heard the Rev. Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich being interviewed on Weekend Edition by Scott Simon. They were having a respectful conversation. They were working together to promote education.
They did not try to hide the fact that the two of them had serious disagreements. But they both said that what they were working for was so important, they needed to work together. I never thought I'd say that Gingrich and Sharpton are good role models for restrained, polite, bipartisan (and hopefull effective) work. But here we are..
They did not try to hide the fact that the two of them had serious disagreements. But they both said that what they were working for was so important, they needed to work together. I never thought I'd say that Gingrich and Sharpton are good role models for restrained, polite, bipartisan (and hopefull effective) work. But here we are..
Speech
Pres. Obama gave a "back to school" speech a week ago. (Funnily enough, many districts weren't back to school yet. But oh well.) Many people have been protesting. Some silly things have been said on both sides.
Here is my take: it is true that GHWBush gave a speech to school kids, as did Reagan, and no one complained. It's not quite the same for a number of reasons, the biggest one being the availability of technology for watching the speech. When there is a computer in every classroom, that's not quite the same as having a few TVs for the whole school. More people could watch the speech.
Moreover, people did complain. GHWB spent $28,000 on what was called a campaign ad for a captive audience. Hearings were held in congress. People did complain. (See Byron York in the Washington Examiner for details.) For those who are saying, "I would have been fine if GWB had given a speech," I remind you that people were calling for his assassination, comparing him to Hitler, 35 % of democrats believed as of 2007 that he knew about and did not prevent, or planned the 9/11 attacks (See Jay Nordlinger at The National Review Online for details). I really don't believe that all of the people who are saying this so blithely would have let their kids sit for one of GWB's speeches.
The reason they wouldn't is the same problem that people have with Obama: people don't trust the president to give a non-political speech. Or at least, a not outwardly political speech---everything a politician does is by definition political. And in fact, I wouldn't want to have any politician, even one I agree with, give a speech to my kids without my having watched or read it first. I don't let my kids watch commercials without me, for goodness sake! People are too good at manipulation, and my kids are too sensitive to manipulation.
That said, the moment the text of the speech was released, there should have been no problem. I also think that schools who decided to show it on Friday made a good decision---parents who were interested could watch it or listen or find out about it, parents who were not were shirking their responsibility anyway. I was happy to let Eleanor watch it at school, no notice was sent out asking if we wanted to get her out of class, I don't think anyone kept their kids home.
Eleanor's impression is interesting. When I first asked if she had a speech from Obama in class today, she said she didn't remember. Then, "Oh, yeah, I think we did." I asked her what she remembered. She said she remembered the part when Obama said his mom would wake him up at 4:00 AM. I asked her why she did that. Eleanor said, "So he could learn."
I liked the speech. I wish people would listen and learn from it, instead of flying off the handle.
Here is my take: it is true that GHWBush gave a speech to school kids, as did Reagan, and no one complained. It's not quite the same for a number of reasons, the biggest one being the availability of technology for watching the speech. When there is a computer in every classroom, that's not quite the same as having a few TVs for the whole school. More people could watch the speech.
Moreover, people did complain. GHWB spent $28,000 on what was called a campaign ad for a captive audience. Hearings were held in congress. People did complain. (See Byron York in the Washington Examiner for details.) For those who are saying, "I would have been fine if GWB had given a speech," I remind you that people were calling for his assassination, comparing him to Hitler, 35 % of democrats believed as of 2007 that he knew about and did not prevent, or planned the 9/11 attacks (See Jay Nordlinger at The National Review Online for details). I really don't believe that all of the people who are saying this so blithely would have let their kids sit for one of GWB's speeches.
The reason they wouldn't is the same problem that people have with Obama: people don't trust the president to give a non-political speech. Or at least, a not outwardly political speech---everything a politician does is by definition political. And in fact, I wouldn't want to have any politician, even one I agree with, give a speech to my kids without my having watched or read it first. I don't let my kids watch commercials without me, for goodness sake! People are too good at manipulation, and my kids are too sensitive to manipulation.
That said, the moment the text of the speech was released, there should have been no problem. I also think that schools who decided to show it on Friday made a good decision---parents who were interested could watch it or listen or find out about it, parents who were not were shirking their responsibility anyway. I was happy to let Eleanor watch it at school, no notice was sent out asking if we wanted to get her out of class, I don't think anyone kept their kids home.
Eleanor's impression is interesting. When I first asked if she had a speech from Obama in class today, she said she didn't remember. Then, "Oh, yeah, I think we did." I asked her what she remembered. She said she remembered the part when Obama said his mom would wake him up at 4:00 AM. I asked her why she did that. Eleanor said, "So he could learn."
I liked the speech. I wish people would listen and learn from it, instead of flying off the handle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)