Feingold on Alito; Republic of Vermont?

More linkage.

Feingold: Alito Would Be "Dangerous Addition" to Court

Not to be lost in the reporting on Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee vote to endorse the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to serve on the Supreme Court is the fact that U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, has voted for the first time in his Senate career against a Supreme Court nominee.

More than any other vote by a member of the committee -- which split 10-8 along partisan lines, with all Republicans backing Alito and all Democrats opposing his nomination -- Feingold's vote stands out.

While the seven other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had all voted against one or more Republican nominees for the high court, Feingold had, until Tuesday, voted to confirm every Supreme Court nominee, Republican or Democrat, to come before the panel.

This break in pattern by the man who is arguably the Senate's most adventurous thinker and independent player ought to serve as a basis for rethinking strategies with regard to blocking the nomination as it now moves to the full Senate -- up to and including the prospect of a filibuster. [more...]

Please Throw Vermont Out

[...]

I'm ashamed to be represented by a government that feels free to intimidate and torture - as in the recent trial of Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, who put a severely beaten Iraqi prisoner in a sleeping bag, wrapped him with wire, sat on him, poured water on him, and held his hand over his mouth until he died, and only received a letter of reprimand, two months restriction to base, and a $6,000 fine.

I'm ashamed that my country uses military force in the name of empire and oil. That it tries, with Medicare Plan D, to dupe the elderly out of medicine. That it knows the world is running out of oil and smells its own flopsweat. That it pollutes the air and water with abandon. That it spies on its own citizens. That it embarks on a war against the first and fourth amendments of the Constitution. That it subverts the electoral process with rigged voting machines. That it tries to corrupt science and democracy in the name of religion. That it is bowing under the weight of its own corruption.

The tone of the nation is set at the top. Is anyone surprised that the newest fad for teenage boys in Florida is hunting and beating to death homeless people? [more...]

"We're Fucked" - Volume 3,789

Two links today.

The New Fascism

A point-by-point guide to the new political reality in the United States. A reality to which every Democrat in the Senate who refuses to filibuster the Alito nomination is totally oblivious.

Over Chrismas, I had a brief opportunity to speak with my mother about political matters. She's hoping Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee in 2008. My feeling is that this would be a tremendously bad idea. Why? Isn't it time this country had a female president? Well, yes, but there is also a desperate need for a president who is actually capable of speaking the hard, painful truth about what is happening, and Hillary Clinton is not going to do that. She is right in the middle of that wing of the Democratic Party which persists in denying that there has been any fundamental change in this country--which refuses to acknowledge that anything is fundamentally wrong, and that it's all really just a matter of difference of opinion. This is the mantra of the Clintons, the Liebermans, the Kerrys, and it's bullshit.

Democrats: Get Up and Walk Out

Pitt recommends that the Democrats, as a body, walk out in the middle of tomorrow's State of the Union address. In other words, he recommends that they grow some balls, and stop dreaming that, maybe tomorrow, the Republicans will start playing nice. A sample:

For the love of God, you are being compared to Osama bin Laden all over network television because some within your ranks have had the courage to question the war in Iraq. It hasn't been subtle. Bin Laden, according to the right-wing talking heads, is getting his talking points straight from Howard Dean. These are the out-front spokespeople for the folks running the GOP right now. If you think there is compromise to be had with these people, if you think there is quarter to be given to you, then I have a nice, big red bridge to sell you in San Francisco.

I know you believe the Abramoff scandal is going to be your bread and butter in the upcoming midterm elections. I hate to break it to you, but you have already been outflanked. The television nitwits have flooded the airwaves with the meme that this is a "two-party scandal," despite the fact that Abramoff would have sooner lit himself on fire than give money to a Democrat. As you have been collectively incapable of setting the record straight in public, with the exception of a two-minute crunch between Howard Dean and Wolf Blitzer on CNN that left Blitzer spluttering impotently, understand that "this scandal affects both parties" is now commonly accepted fact all across the land.

I agree.

Propaganda: A Handy Guide

Happy New Year. To bring in the new year, I want to post something I just came across on Usenet. I am unaware of the author, but it was posted by someone simply identifying himself as "Makz." Here it is:

Agenda

Everyone and every organization has an Agenda, or reason for what they doand say. When evaluating news, try and figure out why the information is being presented as it is. Does the writer of an article have an interest in one side or another of the issue presented? The editors who write a paper's editorial are also responsible for selecting which news articles are published. Is someone calling attention to a problem also using the problem as a springboard into the spotlight? Try and determine what is gained by the presenter. Are they selling something? Trying to influence your vote?

Example: Advertising-supported media (lots of websites, newspapers, television channels) get money from advertisers to show advertising. Advertisers will pay more if their message reaches more people. So there is pressure to present information in such a way which draws people.

Logical Fallicies

Often in the news "arguments" are presented which, when examined rationally, make no sense. A few "facts" are presented and then a conclusion or call to action is stated. But upon examination, the facts don't support it. Often there has been one or more Sins of Omission committed which, if rectified, render the argument nonsensical. All the other problems described on this page also apply.

Labeling

Names have power. You react differently if told about a "controversial" budget amendment than a plain old budget amendment. Be aware of what names and labels are given to subjects in a story. This is often used in The Numbers Game to make a study match the Agenda of the presenter. Some studies considered 18- and 19-year-olds "children." This made the number of "children" who did something or suffered some fate vastly inflated. But it let the presenter make an Appeal to Emotion to "do it for the children."

Appeal to Authority

Have you ever read an article where it said "experts say..." or "according to experts,..."? Who are these unnamed experts? Do they really exist? Are they so well known that stating their names would tip you off to the Agenda of the writer? You can't evaluate an unknown expert's statement unless you're an expert in the field under discussion. But you can always choose to ignore it.

There is also the danger of celebrities/authorities making statements in an arena where they have no experience. Does the person really have an understanding of the issues involved, or are they just using their fame to push their Agenda?

Appeal to Emotion

Read this section for the children; you'll be glad you did. :-) If faced with two competing arguments, try and see which is mainly based on emotional appeals, and which is mainly based on real fact and reason. It is important to get past the emotional parts of an argument to see if the solutions proposed are warranted and if the solutions would really have the desired effect.

Sins of Omission

What word is missing from sentence? Unfortunately, sins of omission are much harder to detect in real life. When something relevant is left out of a story, it can change the impact significantly. The omission can be either intentional or unintentional, but to be aware of it you either have knowledge about the subject or use Primary and Multiple Sources. Omission is a big problem in The Numbers Game.

Diminutive Dismissals

Don't waste your time reading this boring section. If someone does not want others to read a certain book, see a certain movie, etc. he may dismiss it with a gross oversimplication or outright lie about its contents. Be aware of short dismissals of things which give little or no information about the thing. If it is so bad, how did it get produced?

The Numbers Game

Did you know over half of all people who drank water will die? Statistics and numbers seem to be more often misused than not in the news. There are twice as many as one thing to keep in mind about them:

1) Statistics are based on studies. You cannot judge the study without understanding how/when/where the study was conducted, what the Labeling of things in the study means, what Sins of Omission were committed, and among other things, was the study conducted correctly?

2) Numbers also depend on Labeling of terms, but also on the psychological power of raw numbers. As of this writing, America has a population of over 281,000,000. Keep this in mind when people start shouting how something caused 10,000 deaths or 50,000 injuries or whatever.

How can you judge statistics and other numbers? It is hard to judge statistics, given you need so much more information than you will have available. You can, however, simply ignore them. It can help to judge raw numbers by figuring out what it means in percentage terms. My calculator says 50,000 / 281,000,000 is about 0.018% of the population. Is that sufficient to justify new legislation or whatever call to action is being pushed?

One other thing that I think is important to consider is that virtually everyone uses the techniques listed above from time to time. It's a side effect of being human and imperfect. Logic and cold reasoning are hard, and we have busy lives and limited resources. Sometimes we need to take shortcuts. This applies to individual bloggers as much as to (if not more than) major media outlets. However, this doesn't change the fact that none of the items mentioned above constitute valid reasoning. I guess this is a good illustration of how the quest for truth is really a never-ending struggle. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep struggling.

Just some food for thought to get started in 2006. Hopefully this year will not suck nearly as much as recent years have.