12 things I know I know, and feel that you should know too

[HYSplease]

Can you handle the truth?

1. Hillary winning certain states vs Obama says NOTHING about Obama's chances in those states in the general, and vice versa

I don't know why anyone thinks this makes sense. The majority of people voting in the Democratic primaries are going to support the Democratic nominee. Just because Hillary beat Obama in NY, NJ, CA, etc does not mean Mccain would beat Obama in those states. It's a ridiculous and nonsensical argument.

Just because Latinos and Women support Hillary over Obama does not mean they'll support Mccain over Obama.

Oh, and forget the polls. How can polls be accurate for the general when we don't even have a nominee yet?

2. List of Fallacies

Straw golliwog - this type of argument is a rhetorical technique in which one misconstrues a statement made by an opponent as expressing a racist, sexist, classist or otherwise socially unacceptable viewpoint. By using this technique, followed by a loud declaration of how offensive the misinterpreted statement was and a demand for an apology, it is possible to shift the focus of a debate from the opponent's original point to an examination of their alleged racist/sexist/classist tendencies.

Straw man - is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Ad Hominem - An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Red Herring - a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. Example: I should not pay a fine for reckless driving. There are actual dangerous criminals on the street, and the police should be chasing them instead of harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me.

Tu quoque - Latin for "And you too!", is another deliberate diversion from the original issue. It asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn't follow it himself. Tu quoque is frequently seen in conjunction with an ad hominem argument, when the assertion implies wrongdoing on the part of the presenter.

Appeal to ridicule - also called the Horse Laugh, is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

3. Not every attack on Clinton is sexist

See Straw Golliwog

4. Not every attack on Obama is racist

See Straw Golliwog

5. America is NOT a pure Democracy; it never was and hopefully never will be

Read Madison's Federalist #10 and Federalist #51.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union. - James Madison

There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Franklin, Benjamin

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” - John Adams

“Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.” - John Adams

"Ours is a representative republic with a Constitution in which is recognized the natural law and the natural rights of man. It is a republic with a spiritual foundation characterized by freedom -- freedom for the individual and for his society." (Ezra Taft Benson, Department of Agriculture under Eisenhower, An Enemy Hath Done This, page 97.)

"to every State in this Union a republican form of government." - Article IV of the constitution

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

6. Obama is not a muslim, but so what if he was?

The implication is that there is something wrong with muslims. Not quite sure I understand that one.

7. Closed primaries = closed-minded

If Democrats choose a nominee independents won't vote for then Democrats LOSE, even if that nominee is the choice of an overwhelming majority of Democrats.

8. Hillary's strategy for Pennsylvania

Race + joint ticket. She wants to push the race thing (well, not her necessarily, but she won't stop her surrogates) in order to try and split the vote along racial lines. It's a variation of her South Carolina strategy, but PA has a much smaller black population. Then, she wants to ask Obama to be on her ticket as a gesture to the black community to try and woo their support back; rebuild those bridges. It's an interesting but risky strategy.

9. Hypocrisy is not OK

This is mostly for you, Hillary supporters: Why would it be OK for Supers to overturn the will of the people yet it was wrong for it to happen to Gore in 2000?

10. Popular vote is irrelevant

See #5

Our system is not a pure Democracy. Majority+1 does not - and should not - mean anything.

11. Voting to fund the war is not a negative

In a pissing match between congress and the President, guess who loses out? Our troops. They're there. Fund them until we can absolutely get them out. Cutting off funding to them is just unfair, dangerous, naive, and stupid.

12. Immediate and total withdrawal from Iraq = disaster

I highly suggest watching or reading Charlie Wilson's War.

Total withdrawal from Iraq while it is still a mess = entire generation of people growing up right now who will only see the devastation we left behind = entire new generation of terrorists.

Where do you think bin Laden and his followers got their weapons from? That's right. We supplied them to help them fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Then guess what? When the war was over, we went from sending billions to almost nothing. The majority of the Afghan population at the time was under 14 years old. They grew up seeing this big rich power in the west who was all friendly when they were doing what we wanted, but once they were done, we just ditched them.

The majority of these terrorists (look at the age of most of the 9/11 hijackers) were teens during the Soviet-Afghan war and the aftermath. The young are impressionable.

Not meaning to blame us, but just pointing out a little history.

I agree we should leave Iraq, but not completely as some have suggested. Boots need to stay on the ground in order to keep our interests secure. We need to aid in rebuilding projects. We need to visibly give a shitload of money to help rebuild.


That's it for now. I'm sure I'll think of something else soon.

[scheming daemons]

1. Big Kick and Rec....

....and only the 11th post.


STICK AROUND! We need more like you.

[C_U_L8R]

2. Welcome to DU !!!

and thank you.

[Saturday]

3. #11Defunding a war gets troops out. Were you around for Vietnam?

I could go on and on to refute but hey, you've made up your mind and it won't be changed.

[HYSplease]

4. Eventually, sure

But who suffers in the meantime?

Just to add: Fallacy of the single cause - The fallacy of the single cause, also known as joint effect or causal oversimplification, is a logical fallacy of causation that occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.


There were many many contributing factors that led to us getting out of 'nam.

[Not the Only One]

15. Exactly.

This guy supports funding this stupid war and says it is not a negative to fund the war?

I will quote from Dennis Kucinich, because he states it well...

From the office of Congressman Dennis Kucinich

WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 26, 2007) — Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), issued the following statement after opposing H.J.Res. 52, the continuing resolution for FY2007:

“We do not have to fund the war. The Democratic leadership must tell the President NO to any additional funding. We can separately appropriate money to bring the troops home. The only thing required is honesty, integrity and a willingness to end the war,” Kucinich said.

“The Democratic leadership is playing into the Bush Administration’s hands by continuing to fund the war. What this Congress must realize is that we do not have to fund this war. We must leave Iraq now. That is what the American people want. That is why they voted for Democrats to take control of Congress last November.

“Each year this war is getting more and more costly—both in the amount of money spent and in the number of lives lost. Now this Congress is providing more funds so the Administration can continue down a path of destruction and chaos.

“The Democratic leadership in Congress needs to take a stand against this President and say they will not give him any more money. That is the only way to end this war and bring our troops home.”

He believes "Immediate and total withdrawal from Iraq = disaster". That's nonsense. We can immediately begin the process of removing ourselves from this mess.

Again, Dennis Kucinich covers it:

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1 st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.


Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.


It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Bagdhad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.


4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.


A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.


The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.


5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.


The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.


The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peace keeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties.


Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.


According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.


6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.


For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.


A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.


But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.


It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.


The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.


8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.


9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.


Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.


10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.


11.Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank.

12 .International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq.


In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush Administration's plans to go to war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with the world. Thank you.

[HYSplease]

23. Of course we can

We can do a lot of things.

Immediate & total withdrawal = short term public relations victory, long term disaster.

[grantcart]

The issue of democracy will be the hardest for people to understand

If they want to see a real democracy go to an Iraqi city where 60% of the population (Shiite or Sunni) want to remove the other 40% of the population. A pure democracy is ultimately an endorsement of mob rule.

[grantcart]

5. The issue of democracy will be the hardest for people to understand

If they want to see a real democracy go to an Iraqi city where 60% of the population (Shiite or Sunni) want to remove the other 40% of the population. A pure democracy is ultimately an endorsement of mob rule.

[xchrom]

6. recommend

does this quote remind anyone else of reagan and the post reagan conservative mind?

“Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.” - John Adams

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HYSplease]

9. Ignorance

Pure Democracies inevitably lead to oppression. A pure Democracy cannot succeed.

Their words may not be sacred, but the constitution is.

I actually can't believe someone is going to try and argue the case for a pure Democracy. It truly boggles my mind. The ignorance and naivete of that position is astounding.

But, the ball is in your court. I'm glad to have this debate with you.

[Flabbergasted]

13. I'm going to read this over again after work. KR

oops meant to respond to original thread.

[Not the Only One]

14. Depends on what your definition of pure democracy is

We need the protections in the Constitution for fundamental rights like freedom of speech/expression, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. but you can have a framework like that and have a pure democracy. Progressive ideas like universal suffrage was anathema to the Founders who were advocates for a representative democracy.

Reforms like the ballot initiative, the referendum, the recall of corrupt officials are examples of a pure democracy. Are you against those things? Many great socially responsible things have come about in states like CA because of the people had the right to participate directly in how they are governed.

A republic is dominated by the wealthy and special corporate interests. Do you think that our representatives would all have health care access and the regular "little" people would not in a direct democracy?

Representative democracies are fertile ground for corruption. There's hardly any oversight and there's no real mechanism to hold elected officials accountable (like Bush walking away from the WH next year free as a bird).

You get idiots in the government through patronage in a representative democracy. Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job! Just look at all the morons in the Bush Administration from Falwell's or Pat Robertson's fundie college.

We get these stupid earmarks and all of these other hidden until it's too late lines in legislation in a representative democracy. Barack Obama has a great record of opening up government to the light of day so regular people can see what is being voted on.

We have a nation where hardly anyone bothers to vote. It's a symptom of how sick we are as a nation. It's because they think their vote doesn't matter, that politicians are unresponsive, and they are in many ways right, sadly.

[HYSplease]

20. Agree and disagree

I'll go paragraph by paragrah.

I agree we need the protections of the constitution. I disagree that universal suffrage was an anathema to the founders. If it was, they would have been explicit about it in the constitution. They seemed, at worst, ambivalent on the idea.

I strongly disagree that a republic is dominated by the wealthy and special interests, at least any more so than a Direct democracy. Wealth & special interests get exposure and in our sheep society, exposure is everything. Imagine how that would be if they could basically advertise their causes heavily in the most populated states and get the issue passed?

All governments are fertile ground for corruption. There are mechanisms to hold elected officials accountable, but not everyone agrees Bush should be impeached. If everyone did, he would be held accountable. If people want him held accountable, they will elect Democrats this year who believe in that. Not doing so indicates that they don't want that.

You get idiots in government in a republic because you have idiots voting. Imagine how much worse it would be if those idiots (who make up a majority of the country) got to directly vote on the issues. Slavery would still exist, women still wouldn't be able to vote, segregation would be the norm, gay's would never get the right to marry, etc, etc.

If the earmarks and crap are getting out of hand to the point they bother the people, the people have the right to vote the guilty parties out of office.

And in a nation where hardly anyone bothers to vote, do you really think it's better to have a direct Democracy?

I'm not as eloquent as James Madison. Please, please, PLEASE read Federalist #10. He sums it up perfectly. Federalist #51 to a lesser extent.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Good post. n/t.

[Debi]

10. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

What a great way to introduce yourself!

[K Gardner]

12. Excellent ! And welcome :-) K&R

[OneBlueSky]

16. "12. Immediate and total withdrawal from Iraq = disaster" . . .

it will be disaster only because we invaded and occupied the country in the first place . . . whether withdrawal is immediate or ten years from now, the result will be the same . . . the only difference is the hundreds of billions of dollars that we won't be pumping into the war if we withdraw now . . . dollars we don't have, btw . . .

politics and governing are all about choices . . . we can choose to carry on as usual, dumping untold amounts of money into the war machine, and watch our economy collapse as it has never collapsed before . . . OR we can withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, cut the military budget by 50% or so, and invest heavily in a "Manhattan Project" that focuses on rebuilding the nation's manufacturing base around researching and implementing alternative energy and energy conservation solutions while providing good jobs for thousands and thousands of Americans . . . the ultimate goal being to get us off of our reliance on fossil fuels . . . the choice is ours . . .

[HYSplease]

18. Well I agree

But we can't go back and change the fact we made the mistake we did.

[not_too_L8]

17. Very well put...K&R

Keep thinking it's working

[rucky]

19. Damn you're good.

This should be pinned at the top of GD-P

[rug]

21. 6 out of 12 is a good start. You have time to learn.

[HYSplease]

22. I'd love to know which you disagree with

I'd be glad to debate any of my points (I wouldn't have posted them if I didn't feel I could back them up)

[rug]

24. 7, 8 11, 12.

I reconsidered two of your points.

[HYSplease]

25. Gotcha

8 is more of an educated guess, so I concede the point (so I guess the title should have been 11 things I know, 1 thing I think).


Curious as to why you disagree with the other 3.

[rug]

29. OK

#7 There is nothing closed minded about limiting Democratic primaries to Democratic voters. It is a much better way to require candidates to argue their positions to Democratic voters. If the party has any worth its platform will reach across party lines in the general election.

There has been too much tampering, intentional and inadvertent, with the Democratic selection process this season and too much pandering by the candidates. The primary is an opportunity to recruit and energize people to the party, not an individual candidate. If voters sincerely agree with a candidate and his or her positions it is not too much to ask them to join the party.

#11 Funding troops is not the same as funding war. The enormity of the damage and wrongness of the war cannot be overstated. Skilled and principled politicians should be able to craft a bill that categorically pulls the plug on this war. Arguments that it won't pass or Bush will veto it are weak and convenient excuses not to do it. If there is anything worth making a political battle over it is this.

#12 Disaster for whom? The continuation of this war is an absolute known disaster. The rationale to stay precisely echoes the argument to stay in Vietnam. What was predicted for Vietnam did not happen. The US and its corporations are happily making their trade deals in Hanoi. If it takes helicopters on embassy roofs to end this war, fine.

Finally, the whole construct of this "war on terror" has to be reexamined. How much popular support does terrorism actually have? Can it be seriously credited that any government that follows a US pullout in Iraq is a victory for al Qaeda? The war must end. Period.

I'm getting pizza. Talk to you later.

[BlueIdaho]

26. I think...

you're my new hero. Well stated cogent argument that doesn't rely on a time machine or magic pixie dust for its logic.

Well done.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

27. Thank you. Especially for #11.

I've been banging my head trying to convince idiots that it's NOT 1975 and the current bunch of sociopaths in charge right now is not going to obligingly end the war because the pursestrings are cut. They will leave our kids over there with no food or water if they have to.

[Political Heretic]

28. I have several points of disagreement in a post that I really like

First, I commend you on a well written post and excellent read!

I do object to a few points.

Point number 5 and Point 10: Now, I am well-educated, and I do understand that the United States is a representational democracy rather than a direct democracy. But I have to point a few things out. First, both a representational and a direct democracy have some problems. It is true, a 51% majority isn't really "representative" of the will of the people. Of course, no law says things must be decided by a simple majority vote. Perhaps in a direct democracy, change would require a super majority or two thirds majority. That aside, there is something to be said for the consent of the governed and the will of the people. Majority rule isn't perfect, but it isn't clear whether or not it is better than other options.

On the other hand a Representative Democracy suffers from the same problem: a 51% majority of representatives is still not very "representative" now is it? It's even less representative because now its abstracted from the actual people. Further, an advanced review of the writings of the early founders reminds us that a large part of the reason for a representative democracy was that privileged elites (I know we hate that term as it sounds cliche, but they were wealthy landowning white males - those were who organized the constitution) desired to ensure that they maintained institutional control. They did not want the "ignorant poor masses" having too much power to make decisions - either for benevolent reasons (because they thought the masses were too stupid to care for their own interests) or for clandestine reasons (because they wanted to sustain their own power.)

So its important to remember the dark side of our representative democracy - it was favored largely as an institutional mechanism of control, to abstract the People from too much influence over their own government. It was designed to create "buffer" layers between the people and the institution of government to make revolutionary change more difficult.

In a modern nation of 300 million people, a representative democracy is our only option. But I won't disparage direct democracy quite as much as you do. The will of the people matters. Majority, though not perfect - is relevant and it matters. Popular votes matter. The majority of Americans, by 500,000 votes chose Al Gore over George Bush in 2000. And even though Al Gore would have won the electoral vote if the election had been legal, I think that amount of a popular majority really matters. I think its a travesty that he was not president, and I question a society where that criteria alone didn't pick our national leader.

Okay that was really long, so I won't go into the other points. :)

[Melinda]

30. Another day, K&R!