Tilt

Noticed that the news from Iraq hasn't improved since President Obama took office? No indeed, it just stopped. Little known fact: May 2009 was the bloodiest month for U.S. soldiers since September 2008, matching that month's total of 25 deaths. The trend, based on available datapoints, has not been a sharp decrease in casualties. But the media, which only a few months ago (prior to January 20, to be exact) brought us the body count almost daily, has more or less stopped reporting on Iraq despite the continuation of the insurgency.

Now, I don't know about you, but I wonder why.

The mainstream media has all but worshipped the ground graced by our President's feet. Now, respect is important (a fact curiously displaced over the last eight years) but so is objectivity in reporting. Headlines from CNN and MSNBC have consistently either been slanted in the President's favor or phrased so vaguely that the reader needs to be familiar with three other stories to understand the implications. Some accountability here might not be a bad idea.

I expect the human cost to the United States to decrease as we continue withdrawal, but some instinct tells me that the Iraqis will face some challenges that the media and our current government have elected to gloss over. These challenges will likely be under reported in the mainstream media, at least until they become severe enough to render denial unfeasible.

H.M.S. Defiance

The protests in Iran and China, not to mention the recent coup in Honduras, have me thinking about the role defiance plays in politics. Refusal to accept the status quo often appears stubborn or pointless to external observers, but blunt defiance of political reality or social demands is how revolutions begin. An unacceptable condition gives rise to defiance, defiance to discord, discord to argument, argument to change. Any of these stages may or may not involve violence, and that is where ethical and moral decisions come into play. Viewed solely as a political creature, defiance is tough to nail down as a force for good or ill. Look at the Americans in the 1770s. Look at the Irish in the 1970s. Look at the Palestinians today. Who's right? The answer depends of who you consult, but these causes and their proponents all wound up defying someone, sometimes to great effect and sometimes not. The most illuminating feature of examining defiance on a case-by-case basis is the obvious division of the justifications of differing forms of defiance. That, then, is where I will begin: with the whys and hows.

The first criterion defiance must meet before enjoying positive moral status is a just cause. This is hardly rocket science at first glance. Of course a group needs some legitimate grievance before opposing authority. Which causes are just are also pretty obvious to any individual with a solid Christian worldview. Opposition to abortion is just. Opposition to speed limits is not. The challenging bit lies in determining under which circumstances a substantively just cause merits pursuit via defiance. Consider abortion. We have a pro-choice President. Yay, America. This view, and the policies it entails, are directly contrary to my worldview. I am obviously justified in using political channels to try to rectify the situation. When that fails, though, can I defy the law? Can I distribute literature within fifty feet of an abortion clinic? Can I refuse to pay taxes when a percentage of that money would fund abortions? The fact is that Obama is the duly elected leader of the United States, along with the lefty Senate and House. Can we defy their edicts? The answer, on moral issues, is a yes based upon Scripture. The answer is cloudier on issues of pure policy, say, gun control. If I disagree with a law, can I cease to obey it? Or what about income tax and the resultant effective forfeiture of Fourth Amendment rights? We are bound to obey the law, but in America statutory law is supposed to be bound by the Constitution and ultimately by natural law. Where is the line? In all honesty, I don't know. But I do know this. The time for protest is when protest, via whatever means, will make a difference.

Which segues into the second criterion of moral defiance: appropriate means. Distributing pamphlets is appropriate. Blowing up buildings, usually, is not. Timothy McVeigh arguably had a just cause (accountability for the Ruby Ridge incident) but his methods were unconscionable. Means must be appropriate to the nature of the grievance. The word "usually" may have given you pause in context to the unscheduled demolition of buildings. Think about it, though. What if our government effectively repealed the Constitution and instituted martial law? What degree of violence is appropriate to restore rights? Any? Again the question is clearly a complex one, a better suited to discussion than monologue. If someone tries to shoot you, you are clearly entitled to defense with lethal force. Does the same logic apply to abuses of statutory power? I think it does. I'm not advocating burying an AR-15 in your backyard for the day democracy falls. I'm saying make sure you know someone who has buried two. The cold fact is that democracies invariably self-destruct. Tough cookies, as my mother would say. When that happens, defiance will be necessary. The means justifiable via any tenable moral code are proportional to the nature and extent of the atrocities committed by the target authority. Alecto and company are nasty pieces of work, but the Furies have their uses.

I'm starting to sound like a right-wing extremist. Stop and think, though, and you'll probably realize that my assertions and conclusions are not that far-fetched. When someone brings up genocides or oligarchies, there tends to be a knee-jerk "that can't happen here" mentality. That mentality is precisely why it will happen, be it later or sooner. Defiance is dangerous. Defiance is often undesirable. Defiance is also an inherent part of the political cycle. What is happening now in Iran and elsewhere is an inevitable response to an unacceptable situation. We should be watching the situation in the Middle East very carefully for obvious reasons. We should also be taking notes.

Also solves problem of people smoking or using cell phones while driving

Ford is thrilled to announce the latest of our fine environmentally-friendly products, the Gryn (GM already owns the conventional spelling of "Green"). The Gryn represents the ultimate in eco-friendly materials, an advanced carbon-negative drive system, and the most fuel economy of any car in America called the Gryn and manufactured by Ford right here in America-like regions of China. The Gryn is the most innovative product ever to bless the earth with its existence. Here are some of the ground-breaking (but earth-healing) developments!

The first thing our buyers will notice is the absence of hinged doors. Our studies found that door hinges constitute up to 0.034% of a car's weight and up to 0.53% of its drag coefficient. With the hinges removed, the Gryn enjoys an improvement in fuel economy you can only imagine! Entry into the car is made possible by the first major materials innovation in ten years: the glassless window. Drivers are liberated from the frustrating experience of having to roll down windows using the hand cranks currently in wide use by Ford, GM, and Chrysler, and they even are spared the risk of electrocution by the horrible "automatic" windows used in Japanese and Korean cars! Drivers also never have to worry about keys again, thanks to our doorless-entry system and the revolutionary powertrain and engine that gives the Gryn its green power.

Upon entering the Gryn, drivers may notice the absence of pedals, seats, or a steering wheel. We've hired consultants from Apple Computer to re-make the control systems of the automobile and do away with the cluttered and counter-intuitive controls that have marred generations of cars. We've used the same revolutionary system that made the iPod brilliant: the wheel. This propulsive technology has long been favored by hamsters, gerbils, and other creatures of super-human intelligence. The driver and passenger are both slung within ergonomic, round, circular, curved Eco-Wheels linked directly to the drive wheel (the back left tire) of the Gryn. The Gryn even gets the passenger in on the action, allowing the driver and passenger to work together to propel the Gryn to its truly disturbing maximum speed. Steering is enabled by the gimbals securing the Eco-Wheels in place. Simply try to re-orient one of the Eco-Wheels after spinning it up and angular momentum does the rest! The Gryn TryHugger premium model also includes a chart for working out the torque vectors and figuring out how twisting the Eco-Wheels will actually affect the orientation of the car. Our Gryn Sport model features heavy marble rims on the Eco-Wheels for added control and tighter cornering.

Speaking of which, firm and assured cornering are certain on any surface with the revolution in tire design perpetrated here at Ford. Normal tires are made of rubber, which sticks to the road but necessitates the killing of baby deer. The new Earth Whirl tires featured on the Gryn (and soon on all Ford vehicles) are constructed from the most eco-friendly material available: dirt. Simple yet elegant, the Earth Whirl tire is precision engineered from the finest Chinese and Mongolian clay. The tire is engineered to pick up new dirt on some surfaces and shed dirt on others, ensuring that, as long as the Gryn is driven off-road often enough, the tires are continuously rejuvenated! Our testers also found that the tires become sticky on wet surfaces, indeed "almost impossible to wash off," providing hereto unheard of performance in rainy conditions.

What about safety? Many fuel-efficient cars merely compromise safety to attain fuel economy. Not the Gryn! We've taken safety to levels not seen since the heyday of the American auto industry, specifically October of 1962. The frame is made of machined wood with a fire-retardant layer of tar and wax. Body panels are manufactured from recycled newspaper, organic starch, and natural springwater by Mrs. Norton's 2nd grade class. These panels are precision-engineered to crumple upon impact, channeling energy in one side of the Gryn, through the occupants, and safely out the other side. Airbags are available on premium models, along with foot pumps.

And yet, with all these technological triumphs, the Gryn still sets a new standard in style. Regrettably, photographs cannot yet be released for fear of Foreign Rip-Offs and Evil Competition in our Inadequately Tariffed World (and the Gryn seems to suffer damage from flash photography), but we assure you that the Gryn will change your perception of American cars forever. We began the latest version with the boxy configuration of such successes as the Scion xB and Nissan Cube and made the design bolder and boxier. The Gryn features 1904 vintage kerosene headlamps. Old prosthetic limbs mounted outside the driver's side window add style to signaling turns, and a variety of additional hand gestures are available at minimal extra cost for the discerning customer.

The Gryn also has the performance to match its appearance and is capable of running on anything the driver is willing to eat. Tester Mark Winningham managed to propel the Gryn 84 miles on the grease contained within a single order of McDonalds french fries, an astounding 57.3 miles per gallon. And the Gryn is perfectly adapted to the modern American's on-the-go lifestyle. The Gryn goes just as fast as you do!

What about cost? Well, thanks to generous federal subsidies and various death threats from the Earth Liberation Front should the price be too high, the Gryn is available for a mere $13,936, easily edging out such vehicles as the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic, and Ferrari Enzo, while consuming less gasoline than any of the above.

Slated for release in August, the Gryn will be available in one attractive designer color (that's Apple-style thinking again!) and later generations are expected to include cupholders and other luxury items. Buy a Gryn before they are all gone! We don't expect them to last long! Contact your local Ford dealer today to pre-order and sign the necessary releases.

The valley of the shadow

I've heard the expression "You learn more from failure than success" so often I will likely petition to have it put on the list of banned phrases Congress is probably secretly working on. I must admit, however, that it carries a good bit of truth. The precise mechanics of this truth are actually quite interesting. Let's have a look at why failure forces us to learn, why learning from failure is important, and why this matters today.

So, why does failure teach us more than success? Because failure makes use acknowledge that we need to learn. For example, I debated an extremely skilled LDer in the final round at the Milwaukee NCFCA tournament. She won. I, obviously, did not. I'd say that constitutes a failure. It was also an extraordinary opportunity, because I was compelled to evolve as a debater and improve my cases and style. Had I won I would have been disinclined to alter my apparently winning formula. When we lose we see what to change and are motivated to change it. I do not lose rounds frequently, in large part because of the rounds I do lose. I am going the Nationals next week and fully expect to be flattened, at least a few times. And I can live with that. This is my last year, but I'd rather learn how to fry an opponent in college than be handed a trophy.

This ties into why learning from failure is important. In order to survive, thrive even, people must adapt. Companies change or collapse. Nations alter their policies from time to time or fall. Change, though occasionally unpleasant, is an integral part of existence in almost any system. Consider recent political developments. People who wish to retain certain freedoms ought to act now. The pressure is on, so to speak. If you ever want to own an AR-15, buy it now. If you want to maintain full freedom of speech, start writing letters to your representatives. Steps that were unnecessary five or eight years ago are imperative. The political climate has changed. We must adapt to survive. The failure of the right to communicate effectively is an expensive one, but also a lesson that hopefully will stick around longer than the consequences of this failure.

So, why does the power of failure matter today? Put simply, people refuse to learn from failure unless some negative natural consequence attaches. This means that, nasty as it sounds, if someone jumps off a cliff he should be allowed to hit the ground. The more the consequences are softened, the lower the perceived risk, the more people act recklessly. This is known as the Peltzman effect. It explains why accident rates went up after anti-lock brakes were introduced. When the government, for example, prevents banks from collapsing after making high-risk loans based on non-existent capital or saves people financially after they buy houses they can't afford it simply encourages the repetition of these actions. Freedom begins with freedom to take the consequences. No one learns from failure, from challenges or adversity, when the painful edges are blunted or the costs eliminated. Our current government is going to great lengths to ensure that we who walk through the valley of the shadow are wearing blinders and cushy shoes.

Trials exist for a reason. Pain is the one teacher no one can ignore. Failures vary in cost and extent, but their long-term value is inestimable. The restoration of natural consequences ought to be a priority for any government hoping to maintain a stable society.

In all honesty, I doubt it will be at any point in the foreseeable future.

Between the idea/And the reality

Grand and sweeping visions are all well and good, but occasionally it is a good idea to determine what can actually be done before committing to do it. Case it point: GITMO. The commitment is made: we will close GITMO by next January. At this point, though, the only way to do it would involve shooting everyone inside and tossing them into the Caribbean. Not very nice, even relatively speaking. The cold, implacable facts are that these detainees need to be tried in some court, they need to be housed somewhere until said trial, and nobody wants to house them. Familiar with the nuclear waste problem? Everyone wants to dispose of it, no one wants to bury it in their state. Something similar applies here. Let's break down the real problems.

First off, we have the question of where and how to try these people. As unaligned military combatants, the detainees in Guantanamo Bay have no real rights whatsoever. But who determined their status? The military? A coin toss? Obviously, some sort of trial, in civilian or military court, is necessary here. And trials take time and money. So far, I sure haven't heard of any successful funding bills. I haven't even heard about charges being filed against most of the detainees. Until these steps are taken, moving these people is just changing the location of their incarceration without moving toward resolution.

Secondly, we face the issue of temporary incarceration. No one wants these guys in their state's prisons. I am not convinced they would last all that long in that environment anyway; nobody likes a terrorist. Federal prisons are already packed and the "not my state" issue still attaches. Committing to moving everyone out of GITMO reminds me of an incident that occurred when I was seven. I took a recklessly large bite of steaming pizza. By my estimation, that pizza was hotter than the surface of the sun. But what was I going to do? I had no place to put it. I couldn't swallow it. So I just sat there and suffered. Eventually, the pizza cooled, I swallowed it, and my sense of taste returned in a few weeks.

The third issue is that of long-term housing. What happens when we convict many or all of these detainees? Shoot'em? Let them leave? I doubt either one will happen in most cases. We will have to incarcerate them permanently someplace. See previous paragraph.

Finally, what do with do with new detainees? If our troops continue to work in Afghanistan or Iraq, we will (hopefully) keep catching people. I doubt we will find a single facility in the U.S. system that can serve even as a temporary nexus for new arrivals.

The moral of the story? GITMO needs to be cleaned up, but just closing it is downright sloppy. The prison might need new management, but it need be no different than any other military jail. Shutting down GITMO as a symbol is like forbidding the Army from using M4s because of a friendly-fire incident. There is nothing unique or evil about the site. Improvement is possible. Grandiose statements about ideology are best reserved for speeches. Policy is policy. No more, no less.

I hope this gets past the censors...

Something is happening. This should come as no surprise; something is always happening, but the precise happening of which I speak is particularly interesting--and worrisome. You see, once an idea is put forth and accepted, it is harder to discredit than the testimony of the Pope. And ideas grow. The phrase "right-wing" has decidedly negative connotations already. It's going to get worse. Consider the recent DHS report regarding "extreme right-wing extremists." I find it highly intriguing that such a report would be published immediately after our government takes a firm step to the left. It used to be that the most dangerous groups in America (according to the FBI) were ELF and ALF. That's correct, extreme leftist groups, or at least groups with interests that tend to parallel those of Democrats. The Earth Liberation Front actually does blow things up. The Animal Liberation Front attacks people wearing fur coats. These groups are doing things that clearly qualify as criminal. Sure, right-wingers have done nasty stuff in the past (Timothy McVeigh, for instance) but such incidents are rarely, if ever, the work of coordinated networks of the type that qualify as terrorist groups. Yet rightists are allegedly more worrying than groups that set houses on fire for not meeting environmentally-friendly building codes.

So, why would DHS switch priorities? The "why" should be obvious. The "how" may not be.

The rest of this entry is a breakdown of how I would silence a dissenting group were I in charge of (or in a position of influence within) a government with substantial resources.

First off, I'd win as much popular support as possible. This has two desirable effects. It ensures that whatever dissent group I target (rightists, dairy farmers, circus performers, left-handed people, whatever) is in the minority. In a democracy, this prevents national-level voter opposition to any future actions. The second effect is that popular opinion itself puts adverse pressure upon the target group. Carrying a concealed gun in the United States is legal (with a permit) in most states, but only a tiny percent of the population is walking around with concealed handguns despite the fact that this would almost certainly lower crime rates. Why? Partially because of the attached social stigma should anyone find out.

Secondly, I would win the support of as much of the mainstream media as possible. This is a challenge, because the media tends to climb onto a pedestal and can only be dislodged through rather...extreme means. If my ideological goals match those of the media, though, this step is remarkably easy. I just hand out lots of interviews and face time, maybe make some comments about how great cable news is in a democracy, etc. This ensures that information flow is tilted, even slightly, in my favor and away from those nasty, gun-toting, flag-waving neo-Patrick Henrys.

Speaking of which, the third step is to assign an unpleasant and vaguely ominous label to the target group. Let's say I want to marginalize left-handed people. I'd release a report from the DHS about the dangers of the "Unconventionally-dexterous non-conforming subculture." The report would outline a conspiracy to make all computer mice left-hand-compatible only and reverse place settings in restaurants. The label might be technically accurate, but remember that people assign connotative meaning at will. And, thanks to the media and my popular support, people will be edging away from the unconventionally-dexterous non-conformist subculture elements as though they have swine flu.

The final step must be taken gradually. It consists of slowly introducing laws designed to limit the freedoms and power of the target group. For example, I'd start with a law that requires typists to use their right thumb on the spacebar. No outcry over that, right? Especially when Katie Couric explains how it helps the Poor. Next is a law requiring all computer mice be right-hand only. A bit more, but since when is little more of anything a problem? Next, all government forms must be signed using one's right hand. Give me two more paragraphs and I'll be up to amputations of people's left hands and feet if they refuse to buy the correct kind of baseball glove.

These simple steps are not difficult, nor are they implausible. We are already at step three regarding the "right-wing domestic terrorists." I'll be blunt. I am very far to the right. I plan on acquiring a shotgun when I have a house in which to keep it for the purposes of recreational shooting and home defense. I'll pay as little income tax as is legal. I will never say anything postitive about Rosie O'Donnell. I will probably vote Republican for the rest of my life. None of these actions make me a terrorist, but I still see my name on some future watchlist because of refusal to toe the current party line. Once the idea that right-wingers are dangerous is planted, the tree only requires time, a favorable clime, and a few shrewd leaders to develop into something antithetical to classical American ideals.

When is treatment lethal?

The new Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has an interesting idea. He recently suggested having schools "be open" six or even seven days a week for as many as eleven months a year. The rationale is that the U.S. needs to be able to compete with other nations that are currently vaporizing us on the education front (think Japan and Finland). While I applaud Secretary Duncan's acknowledgement that a problem exists, I must question his methodology. Firstly, though, we must evaluate the problems he intends to solve and contrast them against the problems that actually exist.

Implementing longer school weeks and years would theoretically afford more opportunities for learning. This presupposes two issues:

Firstly, this assumes that not enough opportunities are available. I beg to differ. The American Legion Oratorical Contest rivals any government course in terms of what students can learn, but less than a hundred students attempt it in Indiana each year. Debate affords the chance to become an expert (and I mean an expert) on almost any issue, but show me the public school where the debate team is larger than the football squad. Opportunities exist, Secretary Duncan, it's just that kids aren't taking them.

Secondly, this assumes that time spent off school (on weekends and over the summer) is being wasted. There is some truth to this. Many Americans (especially teens and preteens) go home from school and switch on the Xbox. But many also have jobs. Many younger kids play sports, or read recreationally. Some (gasp) have solid relationships with their parents and do things as a family. I'm homeschooled, but even so half of what I learned I learned on my own time. More time locked in a classroom may not balance less time spent working at Wendy's (and thus developing life skills) or reading A Critique of Pure Reason (which I can almost guarantee is not being taught in schools) or even just spending some time as a family.

I suspect that Secretary Duncan has missed the real issues. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, but I'll target the three most obvious to me:

1. Students

I just made a lot of people really mad, but hear me out. I spent a week at Hoosier Boys' State, an American Legion-run civics program last summer. Many very intelligent, social, fun students attended. Many singularly unpleasant students attended. I remember staring in amazement as a few of these students analyzed the contrasting abilities and styles of a dozen obscene (and, to me, indistinguishable) rap artists. The intelligence was there. But these same students gave me blank looks when I tried to discuss economics or politics or even science fiction books that hadn't been made into movies. No effort had been made by most of these guys to learn on their own. Why do we expect them learn in classrooms? Students can be lazy and no amount of additional time will cure this malady. Some students excel in public schools. Far more squeak by. Many fail. Same schools. Different students. Same schools. Different degrees of success. I think the success rate could be higher, but the sooner we accept that some or even many students just self-destruct the better the schools will be. The lowest common denominator is not an acceptable standard for education and cannot be the group to which schools primarily cater. Most importantly, the failure of students is not justification for the reformation of programs under all circumstances.

2. Parents

I just made even more people mad. Pop quiz for parents: who is responsible for your kids' education? If you answered "the state," please go read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. If you answered "me," then pat yourself on the back and move on to the next section, because you already know what I'm about to say. The state does not care about your kids. Never has, never will. Some people in government might, but the state generally exists to perpetuate itself. If that means providing education, fine. But it will consistently provide the least educational quality it can get away with. Who lets it slide? All too often, parents. Parents need to be willing to call schools on the carpet, help improve the quality of education, and, most importantly, just be willing to pull their kids out if necessary. Don't just pack 'em off at the age of six and expect the state to teach them. I am not a parent, and thus I am completely unqualified, but I do know this: the state would be fine with stamping you son or daughter with a barcode and having them subsist behind a desk for thirteen (under Obama, twenty-two) years of their lives. You love your kids. The state can't and won't. Step up to the plate. Help teach. Teach ethics. Teach sportsmanship. Teach personal finance. Impart character, that mysterious quality so tragically lacking in my generation. Until parents retake responsibility for raising kids, the schools cannot perform their function because of confusion over what this function even is.

3. Dewey

Good ol' John Dewey thought that education could cure society's ills and that this education could be universally applied. His views have been adopted, either quietly or overtly, by the states and by the feds. This results in two curious views. Students must be turned into clones molded to function in our Utopian, pluralistic society and the way to do this is through massive testing. This may seem disconnected, but follow me for a moment through the thought process. Under the ideas of Dewey, the goal of education is less to equip students to learn than it is to repair the harm done by their parents and to impart all the information and attitudes needed to be plugged into the world. Thus education changes from an open-ended, flexible process to an assembly line with a clear origin, terminus, and objective. How do we know if our little clones are up to snuff? We test 'em. Standardized tests determine which students have been correctly programmed and which ones need to visit Room 101 (Read 1984, too). Schools are awarded that elixir of life, federal funding, based on how many students pass. This idea that a good education consists of meeting criteria A, B, and C is at the heart of many of today's issues. Understanding matters less to Dewey than knowing. Knowing can be measured cheaply, understanding can't, at least not by the government.

Well, that's all I have to say for now on the problems. There are more, of course, but I'd have to designate a separate blog. What should be done? Well, Secretary, I think you can fix the third problem quite easily. Talk Obama into doing what Reagan threatened two decades ago: eliminate the Department of Education. It has no right to exist. It derives power from no Constitutional mandate. It inflicts more harms than it brings benefits. The idea that the federal government has either power over or vested interest in education is more than just incorrect; I find it downright frightening. Let me be clear. I am not on the lunatic fringe. I think that we landed on the moon and that the Warren Report is at least not a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. But government, and federal government in particular, education is another nail in the coffin of a free society. Think about it. We tell kids, starting at birth if Obama gets his way, that the government is responsible for their upbringing. That it should feed them breakfast. That the school is to blame if they fail a test. That the school should value their esteem. And then we expect them to lead independent lives? Expect them not to turn to the government for support at every opportunity? Expect them to regard the government with caution? Expect them to value initiative and personal responsibility and accountability and family and self-reliance and faith and hard work and vision and freedom? Because I can guarantee you this: none of these foundations of a virtuous society are taught in today's public schools. Will six days a week, eleven months a year of this make the situation better?

What do you think, reader?

What do you think, Mr. Duncan?

Engaging auto-destruct in 5...4...3...

These are some of the worst things anyone can say in a round of debate. The TP topic deals with policy toward India. LD is idealism (affirmative) versus pragmatism (negative). Let's break it down, shall we?

Team Policy

Affirmative

"Our plan works in theory."

"Barack Obama is enacting our plan even as we speak."

"Death is only a problem in some instances."

"The negative has failed to impact their thermonuclear war disadvantage. Why is this a problem?"

"Our plan harnesses the power of global warming..."

Negative

"Saving babies is irrelevant to this round."

"Personally, I think this is a great idea, but..."

"We don't actually have any evidence."

"Human trafficking? How is this even a harm?"

"I'd like to address the affirmative's definitions..."

Lincoln-Douglas

Affirmative

"Hitler was an idealist."

"Sometimes we have to ignore reality."

"I don't understand what the negative just said."

"I'd like to quote Josef Stalin..."

"Well, yes, we sometimes have to compromise our values..."

Negative

"Hitler was a pragmatist."

"Human rights don't matter that much."

"Progress is the highest value."

"I'd like to quote Nietzsche..."

"Pragmatism is basically the same as practicality."

General Debate Potpourri

"What have the starving children done for us lately, eh?"

"Ignore the arguments for a minute."

"My opponent is unworthy of consideration because she is short."

"You face a choice at the end of this round: agree with me or be eaten by the wolves."

“I don’t have the burden of proof with me…”

“I can’t quote that evidence because it is resting.”

“My source is a professor of botany.”

“My partner is wrong.”

“My evidence, as you can see, is open to interpretation.”

“Although I don’t have evidence for this point…”

“There’s nothing wrong with Wikipedia.”

“If I were me, I’d lie in this situation.”

(On CX) “Did you mean to write that case?”

“Wait. I’m on which side?”

(On CX) “Was that a question?”—“If that was an answer.”

“I plead the Fifth.”

“Hold on. I meant to say the opposite.”

“According to the following blog…”

“Can we try a different case?”

“Well, as you can see our case is perfect…”

“Well, we never said our case was perfect…”

“There are worse things than nuclear war.”

(On CX) “What’s topicality?”

“The Constitution was a generally good idea, but shouldn't we get over it?”

“People are worth $367.57 a piece.”

“In the wise words of Rosie O’Donnelll…’

“I saw our plan in a movie once and it worked great. I think it was a Tom Clancy…”

“Our case is similar to what the Soviet Union did in 1924…”

“The affirmative case is horrible because it might cause a spike in the cute bunny population.”

"The other side has won only four of the five stock issues. Unaddressed thoughout the round has been the importance of pity toward us..."

Who's on first? (revised for the 21st century)

Adam Smith: So whose money is being used for the stimulus?

Barack Obama: The taxpayers'.

Smith: What will you do with it?

Obama: Spend it.

Smith: What would they do with it?

Obama: Spend it.

Smith: Why is it better that you spend it?

Obama: They might save some of it.

Smith: Don't they need to?

Obama: No. The government gives The People social security for retirement, unemployment, and the measles.

Smith: How does the government pay for this?

Obama: We tax The People.

Smith: So...they don't need to save because the government saves for them?

Obama: No. We make 'em pay FICA taxes and then spend the money.

Smith: So where does the money come from for social security?

Obama: Some people die before they are eligible for benefits.

Smith: Hasn't the population curve changed so more people are living long enough to receive payment relative to those paying social security taxes? People living too long, essentially?

Obama: That's what government health care will fix.

Smith: So you're implementing government health care to kill off people at a younger age?

Obama: No. I'm implementing it to destroy the evil money-grubbing insurance providers.

Smith: And government insurance will be better?

Obama: Sure. The government can afford to operate at a loss, so there is no need for "profits" (which are really wages stolen from the proletariat).

Smith: Who compensates for the loss?

Obama: The taxpayers.

Smith: So doesn't everyone end up paying the same amount they would pay the insurance companies?

Obama: No. I said "the taxpayers," not "everyone." The rich have to cover it.

Smith: Who's rich?

Obama: People who earn over $250,000 a year. Wait, $200,000 a year. Wait, $150,000 a year...

Smith: But aren't these people often the entrepreneurs and investors who drive the economy?

Obama: Yes.

Smith: Why tax them?

Obama: Because it's not fair.

Smith: What's not fair?

Obama: That they make that much money when the average family at the poverty line only owns one television and most are not flatscreens.

Smith: But don't the poor usually not put as much into the economy?

Obama: They contribute just as much, you racist, classist, bourgeois swine.

Smith: Just askin'. What are you going to do about this situation?

Obama: Tax the rich and give to the poor.

Smith: How?

Obama: I'll start by signing a stimulus bill to jump start the economy. I'm also thinking of taking up archery.

Smith: Who gets the stimulus money?

Obama: The rich.

Smith: The rich?

Obama: The rich. Only they have to spend it on groceries. No business jets or office makeovers.

Smith: Or what?

Obama: Or we crucify them on national television before Congress.

Smith: But does it really matter to economic recovery how they spend the money as long as it gets back into the economy?

Obama: No.

Smith: So why do you care how execs spend the stimulus bill?

Obama: Grocers make less money than business jet manufacturers.

Smith: So we're back to wealth redistribution.

Obama: Such a harsh term...I prefer "enhancing socio-economic harmony with emphasis on the appropriate allocation of capital and the benefits there derived."

Smith: What does that mean?

Obama: Wealth redistribution.

Smith: Why not just let the people keep their money and spend it how they choose?

Obama: This way the government has oversight.

Smith: Oversight?

Obama: Oversight.

Smith: What's that?

Obama: Oversight?

Smith: Oversight.

Obama: I actually don't know. I understand it involves czars.

Smith: American or Japanese czars?

Obama: American, of course. I've put a high protective tariff on foreign czars.

Smith: I still don't get why the government should spend the money. Doesn't that mean that less money actually re-enters the necessary sectors?

Obama: Yes. That's why we are putting the Fed rate on the floor and deficit spending at the same time. We are "loosening the money supply."

Smith: Is that basically the same as printing money?

Obama: Yes. But it's more eco-friendly.

Smith: Does that cause inflation?

Obama: Yes.

Smith: Isn't that, well, bad?

Obama: Only for people who have been saving.

Smith: And they should have been counting on social security?

Obama: Yes.

Smith: But how does loosening the money supply actually help the economy?

Obama: It enables people to pay off mortgages.

Smith: Couldn't they pay them off before?

Obama: No.

Smith: Why not?

Obama: They couldn't afford the mortgages.

Smith: Then why did they get large mortgages in the first place?

Obama: People do silly things sometimes. You know, cling to guns and religion, vote Republican, listen to country music, pay attention to Rush Limbaugh...

Smith: And you are rewarding irresponsible finance?

Obama: Hey, hateful bourgeois scum, some of these people can't pay because they lost their jobs.

Smith: How does loosening the money supply help them? Especially if it devalues savings?

Obama: It creates jobs.

Smith: Jobs?

Obama: Jobs.

Smith: Will that work?

Obama: It already has.

Smith: Isn't unemployment at a thirty-year high?

Obama: No, I mean it got me elected.

Smith: Oh.

Obama: But job creation will save the economy.

Smith: If a job is economically viable, won't it already exist?

Obama: No.

Smith: Why not?

Obama: Yes we can!

Smith: Hm?

Obama: Yes we can!

Smith: Your grammar is wrong.

Obama: Well, CHANGE it!

Smith: You need a comma after the "yes." But quit dodging. Won't all economically viable jobs already exist?

Obama: If by "economically viable" you mean present without government intervention, then yes. We can.

Smith: Stop saying that.

Obama: I can do to you what I did to Rush.

Smith: No, you can't. I've been dead for three hundred years.

Obama: Whatever. Facts never really worried me. What matters is getting people employed. Then production will increase. Then the recession will end. Then I'll be crowned--

Smith: Isn't that what FDR tried?

Obama: Yes.

Smith: It didn't work.

Obama: Yes, it did.

Smith: No, it didn't.

Obama: Yes, it did.

Smith: Have you actually read a history book that some leftist professor did not feed you through a straw?

Obama: The Depression ended, didn't it?

Smith: Only because we had to blow up a few other countries (WWII) and needed the spike in production.

Obama: Well, there you go!

Smith: But the need for more production came first. It was followed by job creation.

Obama: In the absence of countries to blow up I propose job creation.

Smith: Shouldn't you encourage new enterprise by, say, cutting the capital gains tax?

Obama: No.

Smith: Why?

Obama: Because it taxes rich people.

Smith: But where will new companies get money if investment is discouraged?

Obama: From the government.

Smith: How is government money better?

Obama: Strings.

Smith: Strings?

Obama: Strings.

Smith: What are strings?

Obama: They enable the government to control the businesses.

Smith: And that's good?

Obama: Yes.

Smith: Why?

Obama: Because it enables the government to control capital and, eventually, all major industries.

Smith: Isn't that what Lenin did?

Obama: Maybe.

Smith: Didn't it fail?

Obama: Only when the government had to start killing peasants.

Smith: And that's okay?

Obama: If the peasants had ever received federal funding, you bet.

Smith: I'm sorry, but none of this is making sense to me.

Obama: Adam, Adam. If you can' t get the basics you'll never earn your degree in economics. And definitely not from a prestigious school like my alma mater.

Smith: Mr. President...

Obama: Yes?

Smith: If I weren't dead I'd be buying plane tickets for Switzerland. At least they admit to being socialists...

Why not to wear heels to a speech and debate tourney...

I am a competitive speaker and debater. I attend at least a few tournaments each year, and I am struck by how incredibly ironic a few of the aspects of the competition really are. Here are a few examples. I apologize to anyone who doesn't get the inside jokes. You'll come to realize that effective communication is a thoroughly alien concept to many speakers, myself included.

We begin with the first day of the tournament. Speakers pour in from several states and are all squeezed into such proximity that spontaneous fusion is real possibility. I thought I saw a petite debater actually be squashed out of existence between two boxes of evidence in Milwaukee. The reason for the crush? Everyone want to reach the table to Sign In. Signing In is a mysterious process, because no matter which line you choose you will be in exactly the worst possible place. If your last name begins with "g" you will end up in the "r" line and vice versa. This problem could be solved with signs, of course, but the signs are at the tables and the tables are inaccessible beginning thirty seconds after the doors unlock. Once one has Signed In one must proceed to Script Submission. Script Submission suffers from similar line confusion, but is made even more complex by the fact that the Submission Personnel must inspect every single script. This is difficult, especially when so many speeches are calculated to cause crying. I kid you not. Half of the speeches I hear at tournaments make Bambi look like a Red Skelton skit. Some of the Interpretives even make A Walk to Remember seem reminiscent of Charlie Chaplin's work. I think the people who work this station are either supernaturally gifted or simply fortified by preventative doses of Prozac.

The net effect of this process is to ensure that the tournament starts 20-60 minutes later than planned. Usually these minutes are spent, by the vast majority of the competitors, sitting around and waiting for Postings, the near-mythical sheets of paper that tell us where the rounds are and against whom we are competing. This is especially crucial in debate. Right before the debate rounds start, hundreds of suited teenagers pack the areas where Postings will soon magically appear, a bit like a bunch of giant penguins around a pile of decomposing fish. Unlike penguins, however, we treat the Bearer of the Postings with an almost eerie respect. Then, when the Posting is complete, we contemplate lifting him or her upon our shoulders and triumphantly parading him/her around the building, but mostly we just bolt for the competition rooms.

This activity deserves a paragraph to itself. Put yourself in my black dress shoes. The Postings go up. I am in Room SF 163 and up against a ferocious debater. Now, three factors come into play. First is the need for raw speed. Never underestimate the psychological advantage of being set up and coolly jotting down your value arguments as your opponent scrambles into the room. Second is the fact that the room is some distance across campus and on the far side of the building in which the Postings were placed. Third is the fact that both buildings involved are packed with scrambling people. The secret is to move fast and to never stop moving. I start down the first hallway, neatly dodging the first of two 12 year olds carrying unprotected chocolate ice cream cones randomly amongst the suits. The rest of the hall simply calls for footwork until I reach the first choke point. This is where LD debaters (who really don't carry much evidence) have a huge advantage over TPers who frequently have evidence crates the size of Chevy Impalas. I use my briefcase to wedge through the mass. Another debater uses my wake to slide through even faster. No matter. He tries to pass me as I clear the other side. I clothesline him with my Apologetics bag as we exit the clot. Splash one. The first point cleared, I head for the door. Like all doors in this building it is wheelchair friendly, meaning it is almost impossible to open the first few inches, after which it springs open and stays that way for a few seconds. I time my approach. The nearest debaters are six, maybe seven seconds behind me. I wait a half-second, trigger the door and dart through. I hear footsteps behind me quicken to a run, but I am down to the walkway and on the sidewalk by the time I hear a faint swoosh as the door suddenly closes, followed by a double thump. Splash two more. I approach the other building and see the unthinkable: the other debater is a girl and is almost as close to the building. Direct tactics of the type appropriate against male opponents are out of the question; chivalry is not completely dead, but I have options. I turn and detour across the still-soft ground, darting along a shortcut between buildings. She follows, and quickly pulls ahead as she follows an even more direct line along the wet surface. I see her high heels penetrate damp soil and hear the gunshot-like crack as one sheers off, followed by a bellow of rage. Splash another. I duck just in time as her briefcase whistles through the space previously occupied by my head. I am not quick enough to avoid the flung wreckage of a shoe, but by now I have a sizeable lead. I run up the steps to the destination building and manage to throw my case into the gap in the automatic door as it swings shut, holding it long enough to scramble through. More people are rapidly dispersing inside. One has a wingtip shoe protruding from his ear. I dive around a corner and tuck and roll as two TP teams collide and their evidence collections reach critical mass. The ensuing blast throws open the door to my room. I whip out my flowpad and notes, sit, and manage to scrape together my composure. One point three seconds later my opponent walks in. "Hello," she says, smiling. "Hope you haven't been waiting long." Both her shoes are intact. Spares, of course, but all in all a successful run. I was doing pretty well to take out one set. "Hi," I reply. "Not too long. Glad to see you got here okay. Some of these folks are barbarians."

This process repeats six times during prelim rounds for debates and four times for speech. The mood is less frantic on the subsequent days when we usually run on time. This allows for more effective use of elbows. There are also great shows of heroism and courage. Consider, for example, protecting the timers. Almost everything in this post is either hyperbole or mere fiction. Not this. Some guy off the street showed up after the end of a competition day and tried to steal the timepieces we need for both speech and debate. One of the moms, a small but evidently quite ferocious woman, managed to retain the timers. This cleptomaniacal creep is lucky, though, that he did not run afoul of either the tournament director or my mother. Remember the scene and the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark? These ladies have a stare that can melt your face clean off. Tournament directors deserve medals. If we ever get serious about negotiating with North Korea we should send in the Indy tournament director. She could stare steadily into Kim Jong Il's eyes and say, "You don't want to do that, Kim. I have the power to make you miss your round. I don't want to have to do that, Kim. So just shut the reactors down." It would work instantly, and the only thing we'd have to concede to North Korea would be a new pair of pants for Mr. Il.

Not everyone associated with our tournament has the Stare, but some other intimidating individuals are the judges. There are two types of judges: parent and community. Parent judges are people with kids in the tournament (but in a different event than the one being judged). Community judges are volunteers. Let me be clear here. Few judges are mean and without these fine volunteers tournaments would be impossible. The problem is that, while judging, judges often look quite intent. A lot of concentration is usually in evidence, and this frequently prevents laughter, a major downside when one's speech is meant to be funny. Nothing tops letting loose a joke that has three judges thrashing in their seats with laughter while the fourth clearly does not get it and the last is wearing an expression that implies he hates his life and speaker is Not Helping. Even worse is going immediately after a speech calculated to make the judges cry. Especially when yours is a funny speech. Here you are, telling funny stories and jokes to illustrate your points even as the tear stains are just beginning to dry. Just great.

Responsive judges are more fun in every event, but especially debate. My favorite judges are ones who nod when they like or agree with a point. This way, I have a good idea of how I'm doing relative to my opponent. A bit stranger, but still encouraging, are judges who nod all the time. I can say, "Hundreds of thousands are dying in Darfur because of blind idealism," and he just nods, slowly. My opponent says, "Well, millions are dying in Darfur because of evil pragmatism." He nods at exactly the same rate. I say, "The petaflop barrier has been broken because of Darfurian idealistic analysis of the Categorical Imperative's effect on climate change in conjunction with the ban on CFC's but only in months not containing the letter "e" and due to the increased levels of awesome following the release of Halo 3." He keeps nodding. Cautious probing with a pen reveals that the judge is animatronic. The real one is somewhere else in the room. She is playing with an Etch-a-Sketch and has already handed me the win because she likes my tie.

The last tournament went pretty well for me. I won Apologetics, Impromptu, LD debate, placed in a few other things, and got first overall. I love these events, but that doesn't mean they make sense. Still, hard to top in terms of sheer intensity, eh? Football has nothing on this...

5.56 NATO and the Hague Convention

The Hague convention prohibits the use of weapons calculated to cause excessive structuring. This moratorium is construed to prohibit the use of hollowpoint rounds in warfare (unless the hollowpoint is for aerodynamic reasons). This makes about as much sense, in today's asymmetric warfare, as hand grenades made of cream cheese. Let's work our way down the reasons that the U.S. should adopt the hollowpoint 5.56 round and, ah, adjust its interpretation of the Hague convention.

1) Stopping Power

Currently, the standard round for U.S. forces is the 5.56 mm NATO round in either jacket (steel coated) or ball (solid, pointed lead) form. Fired from an M-16 or comparable rifle, this round develops a muzzles velocity of about 1100 m/sec and a kinetic energy of 7774 joules. This is the equivalent energy of baseball thrown at 706 miles per hour. More meaningfully, a 5.56 has the same momentum as a 210 mile per hour fastball. This is a fearsome amount of energy. Most of it is wasted. This bullet has a tendency to go straight through the target and continues downrange at a considerable speed. Now let's get something straight. When an insurgent charges a soldier with an AKS and who knows what else, what matters is stopping him as quickly as possible. This means imparting maximum momentum change into the target to create shock. A 210 mile per hour fastball will do this quite admirably. One that transfers only half of its momentum to the target will not. A hollowpoint round, on the other hand, expands on impact and thus becomes less aerodynamic upon entering the target and usually stops in it. Complete momentum (but incomplete energy) transfer occurs. This is why most people who carry handguns for self-defense use hollowpoint or softpoint ammunition.

2) Collateral Damage

This is a more serious issue. The 5.56 inflicts a lot of damage and, even in ball form, has formidable stopping power, but on passing through a target it keeps going. This is wasteful and extremely dangerous to anyone downrange. This bullet can go straight through someone, a few panels of drywall, and halfway into an innocent standing next door. A round that stops in the target is unable to do damage beyond the person hit.

3) Lethality

The irony of this is that, at least generally, ball ammunition is more likely to eventually kill the target than hollowpoint. Why? Think about it. How many holes does a person receive when shot by a round that stops in the target? One. When the rounds goes clean through? Two. And exit wounds are a lot nastier than entry ones. A person who is hit by a hollowpoint may be stopped cold, but provided a major organ has not been destroyed stands a decent chance of surviving. A person hit by ball ammunition is likely to bleed to death in the absence of professional medical help. This is even more ironic considering that the 5.56 was not originally developed to be consistently lethal. The reasoning was that in a war of attrition (say, with the U.S.S.R.) the enemy would have to spend more money and time treating wounded soldiers than burying dead ones. This logic is sound, but depends upon the enemy being able and willing to spend the time. Al Qaeda seems a bit reticent in this particular area, so we either end up treating terrorists ourselves or letting them die. I am a proponent of the least force necessary approach, and if we can instantly incapacitate an insurgent without necessitating either death or more expensive medical treatment, this sounds like a sound course of action to me.

My mother has a saying: "Use the proper tool for the proper job." Although she'd be aghast to find she'd been quoted in a post about the 5.56 NATO round, she raises an excellent point. We need to adapt to fight the war we are actually in, not the ones of thirty years ago. This means using the correct tools, and maybe a bit of common sense.

The few, the many, and those ill-equipped to choose

I am a Lost addict. One scene in a recent episode featured a rather substantial number of people on an aircraft that may have been about to crash. A character asked the person seated next to him what would happen to all those people. The other, in one of his priceless signature lines, answered, "Who cares?" This cold indifference to the possible deaths of a few dozen people struck me as simply evil. Then I thought about it for a while. No one could do anything to protect them. Even if they died, the cause for which they died is probably (nothing is certain on this show) more important than a few lives. Surely allowing the dozen to die to save millions is acceptable? Ah, utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher of the early and mid 19th century, proposed that an action is moral when it attains the highest good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is, at first glance, a viable moral framework for at least the shaping of policy. Unfortunately, it is also flawed. The Second Law of Humanity (see January 27) and the Third Law both render utilitarianism ineffective and even dangerous.

1) People cannot always identify "the highest good for the greatest number."

People always, always base decisions on incomplete information outside the realm of mathematics. Consider, for example, a chess game. You are white, so you open. What to do? Queenside pawn? Kingside? A knight? Just run away because you are playing Matthew Sadler? The cold, unpleasant truth is that you have no idea of what the best move is. You might have a general idea or a "gist" of what a sound move would be, but you cannot plan the entire game and cannot foresee every outcome. The science of making decisions without complete information is called "heuristics." It is, almost by definition, the least precise science in existence with the possible exceptions of sociology and psychology. Let us say that Ebola breaks out from an escaped monkey in San Diego (lots of zoos there) and threatens to wipe out 80% of the U.S. population, but we can stop the spread of the plague by detonating a thermonuclear device over San Diego and killing everyone who is infected. Not exactly original, I know, but still interesting. On the one hand, we can save 270 million people by killing a few hundred thousand. But will we really? Can we be sure that the nuclear device will kill everyone? Has anyone already left San Diego? Will the outbreak just die out due to the inhospitably cold climate (relative to Congo)? We just don't know. Utilitarianism promises the end of moral compromise via precise measuring of cost and benefit, but all it offers is a set of mind-boggling probabilities and possibilities. Man knows not his needs.

2) People are incapable of detecting error once a choice has been made without an external reference point. People are also very, very selfish.

Consider, for example, an incident that occurred a few days ago. A man was pulled over by the police and later questioned by the Secret Service because he had an "Abort Obama, not the unborn" bumper sticker. (Here's a brain teaser: if abortion is not murder then how is this a death threat?) This poor guy was placed under investigation for expressing an opinion is way that was tactless but hardly disruptive or grossly inappropriate. Now we come to the crux of the matter: the government will continue to treat folks this way until given a reason not to. Unless someone loses a Senate seat over this, conduct will stay the same because the choice has been made and from the perspective of the people in power there is no reason to change it. Because the government has a different perspective than the people it theoretically serves the significance of external stimuli is not consistent between the two. SWAT teams accidentally breaking down the wrong door is a problem for the people in the house; it is not a problem for the government beyond some wasted time. What Congress perceives to be the greater good is almost certainly going to be incorrect from our standpoint and will remain incorrect until angry letters and petitions start showing up. Utilitarianism cannot be counted upon in government because "highest good for the greatest number" is a relative term from the beginning and is still further damaged by inertia and selfishness.

3) Utilitarianism cannot even be enacted.

I love game theory; it is one of the few elements of philosophy that functions with mathematical precision. Consider the following: two fighter pilots are over enemy territory. A formation of enemy fighters approaches. If both fighters stay, both pilots will be injured and both craft damaged but they survive and reach home. This outcome has a value of 2 for both pilots. (total of 4) If one turns and runs, he will escape but his wingman will die trying to hold off the fighters. This outcome has a value of 3 for the pilot who escapes but a value of 0 for the pilot who dies. (total of 3) If they both flee they outrun the enemy fighters but burn so much fuel doing so that they have to bail out over enemy territory and are captured. This outcome has a value of 1 for both pilots. (total of 2) Now imagine that you are one of the pilots. Should you stay or go? If he stays you are best off fleeing because otherwise you'll be wounded. If he flees you had better follow because otherwise you will die. No matter what your wingman does you are best off retreating. And yet, paradoxically, the best overall outcome is if you both stay and fight. The utilitarian outcome is only possible if both fighters stay. The actions that the pilots actually take will be based in self-interest and render an optimal outcome impossible. The optimal outcome occurs only when courage is added to the mix. This is rather ironic, given that utilitarianism is intended to replace all other value systems and cannot explain or support courage. Utilitarianism tells us to value the highest good for the greatest number but provides to clear means or even reason to try. People, left to their own devices, are not utilitarian. People subject to the will of a Benthamite totalitarian are not free and will likely attempt to become so.

Utilitarianism has a certain appeal, I admit, but recall what is paved with good intentions and utilitarianism is little more than a set of good intentions.

Off with his head (only in French)

I've been thinking about swarm intelligence. This concept forms a major part of Michael Crichton's book Prey. This novel is science fiction, of course, but the idea of swarm intelligence is still interesting and highly applicable to human societies.


The general concept of swarm intelligence is the idea that the interaction of multitudes of simple agents can give rise to complex behaviors. In Prey, this made Crichton's swarms of nanoparticles incredibly intelligent and capable of rapid evolution and innovation. In reality, it makes us very, very stupid. Because people are the exact opposite of a "nanoswarm." People are, as individuals, pretty intelligent. We can be misled, but are usually able to handle ourselves fairly well. People as groups are incapable of rational thought. Consider a mob. To find the IQ of a mob, start at 70 and divide by the number of people involved. Look at the French Revolution. The more violent aspects of this period were either mob-executed (literally) or mob-inspired. Random head removal would not lower the price of bread. This did not discourage random head removal. Why? The main problem with swarm intelligence is a tendency to lose track of goals. People as individuals may see and objective and work to overcome it. I see that the price of bread is too high for me to buy as much as I want to, so I'll fire off an angry letter to Robespierre. A mob sees that the price is too high and they whack off his head. End result? Thermidorian reaction and (gasp) the price of bread stays exactly the same.



What can we learn from this? I'd say that people are, as groups, not very bright. So, let us turn our attention to the idea of democracy. Democracy is based on the idea that the majority of people should determine a government's policies. There's nothing there about desirable or sound policies, what matters is that the people are choosing their own laws. This is interesting in light of the assertion that people are weakest intellectually in large groups. The obvious counter here is that I am making a false comparison; it's pretty evident that election day differs (usually) from the elimination of Robespierre. But the concept that people are more easily confused and misled in groups holds true. Why? Because people (collectively) get caught up in the same emotional rush that drives mobs and demonstrations. Think about the recent election of certain very famous, very popular political figure. The number of Obama supporters I found who could accurately describe his policies, let alone why they supported these policies, can be counted on the hand of a blind butcher. What mattered was that Obama generated a massive emotional upwelling in enough people that it self-propagated. A few people are enraptured. The sensation spreads to their friends, families, etc., growing exponentially with each degree of separation. By the end of the campaign, millions of people acting as the democratic analogue of a mob elected a man whose policies very few of them actually know. Interesting, eh?



This explains, in part, why I have never met a person with an extreme leftist view on gun control or national healthcare who has been willing to argue logically and with evidence. Little such support exists, but this is irrelevant simply because enough other people like the idea or think they do. Want to have some fun? Lock five Republicans and five Democrats in a room. Wait for one hour. Open the door and you will find at least fifteen different opinions. How do such people get into office? Because, collectively, people are frequently idiots. The opinions don't matter; what matters is the ability to stir people up via grandiose promises of "change" or "progress" or even "values" and to get out the vote.



Solution, anyone? America's system of democracy is based on the erroneous idea that people vote in a vacuum. This may have been close to correct in 1787, but it most certainly is false now. People are bombarded with everyone else's opinion (frequently an unthinking one) and before long their own disappears into the noise. We need to restore some measure of individualism. Only when people start thinking for ourselves again can swarm intelligence be neutralized.

EPIC FAIL

Among the semi-literate exclamations of surprise, mockery, or dismay in current use is the phrase "EPIC FAIL." No, no, no. Don't read it like that. Drop your voice an octave or two. Slloooowww dowwwn... Form a mental image of someone you dislike incurring the wrath of a dozen rabid weasels. Now say it out loud a few times. Fun, eh? This term evolved to express the keen sense of "I'm glad that that didn't just happen to me" that so often accompanies video game playing and watching professional sports. Someone not get out of his foxhole when the plasma grenade got in? Epic fail. Break left instead of right and take a heat-seeking missile right through the cockpit? Epic fail. Throw a Hail Mary, have it picked off and run back for a touchdown? Epic fail. Pitch four consecutive balls to someone with a batting average lower than Katie Couric's IQ? Epic fail. But I suspect that epic fail is more widely applicable than just the realms of gaming and sport spectating. The first possibility that comes to mind is my own field of debate. I can just imagine the cross-ex:

Neg: So you agree that human rights can conflict with one another?

Aff: Sometimes, yes.

Neg: How do you know which ones to uphold?

Aff: Well, I guess it varies by the case...

Neg: EPIC FAIL! EPIC FAAAIIIILLLLLL!

(Dull thump as affirmative flowpad and notebook hit the floor. Sharp thump as affirmative debater collapses on top of them, quivering and wondering what just happened.)

Funny, yes, but it got me thinking about what an "epic fail" really is in debate. Looking at my flows from last tournament, I noticed something interesting. I only ever lost to one opponent, and she consistently addressed all the points as they were actually presented. Most of the debaters I defeated tended to use the straw man logical fallacy; they countered an argument that had not actually been made. This is annoying, mainly because of how common it is both inside and outside debate rounds. Real example from today's news:

Pundit 1: How does raising taxes help the economy?

Pundit 2: Ronald Reagan both raised and lowered taxes!

Fascinating factoid, Pundit 2, but also entirely irrelevant to the question. Note that P2 neatly sidestepped the question by implying that the economic boom following the Reagan administration was due in part to tax increases, but he does not address the fact that taxes decreased on the whole. He never actually gave an answer to the question. Here is an even better example:

Me: Why should we label semi-automatic rifles as "assault weapons" and ban them when they definitionally are not "assault weapons" and are used in almost no gun crime?

Angry Liberal: Guns are dangerous and assault weapons are even worse because they spray entire rooms with bullets!

Okay, three things here. One: AL made a flat statement (guns are dangerous) which is not really on point and is unsupported. Two: AL reused the term "assault weapons" (an extremely emotive phrase) which is not accurate and does not refer to the guns under discussion. Three: AL placed the stigma on the guns ("they spray") instead of the criminals. Suddenly the firearms are the whole problem, not the people who misuse them.

Note also a punctuation mark used in both examples: "!" This little mark is usually an indicator that someone is either lying to you or speaking irrationally. Solid argumentation does not need an exclamation point. Solid argumentation does not need an exclamation point! Notice the difference? The second statement sounds almost shrill. Gone is coldly incisive logic and rearing in its stead is the flare of human emotion. Most epic fails in argumentation are made quite spectacularly. Appeals to emotion tend to accompany the burning of straw men.

So, epic fails can be identified by attention to language and the sudden presence of inappropriate emotional intensity. How do you counter them? You can't. Sorry. Someone who makes an argument like one of the examples has already decided to Not Agree With You Ever Even If Hell Freezes Over Twice And The Cubs Win the World Series and nothing you do or say will sway them. Like we say in debate, "Don't try to persuade to other side. Persuade the judge." You cannot effectively hold a discussion with someone willing to resort to logical fallacies (perhaps even subconsciously) because they are both opposition and judge. Epic fail. Suddenly it's not quite as amusing. But this post is not all gloom. Most discussions do not happen in a vacuum. Usually there are observers, even ones sitting on the proverbial fence about an issue. Be alert for lapses in logic and argumentation and gently but clearly exploit them when they occur. Be a source of truth. Above all, please do not give in the urge to commit epic fails in your own speech and conduct. I see nigh as many errors on my side of the issues as on the other side. If enough people conduct ourselves according the standards of ethical debate, I wonder what we could accomplish. I wonder how much we could change and actually change for the better. Think about it. Maybe check out a book on logic and persuasion from the library. And don't play Halo against Xbox nerds unless you know how. My ear is still sore from all the "EPIC FAILs" I received.

I'm freeeeeeeeee...free fallin'

I love theme parks. I didn't always much appreciate them; for many years I had this irrational fear of streaking straight down at 90 miles per hour in a vehicle designed by engineers not currently riding in it. Luckily, at Cedar Point I overcame this entirely groundless phobia long enough to discover I actually like roller coasters. I think that the lawn mowing I did over the summer finally killed off enough brain cells. Let us examine the theme park experience.

Step One: Travel

There are plenty of ways to die interestingly in Anytown, USA, but go ahead and travel a few hundred miles to visit Cedar Point. This way, you get to pay gas money to countries like Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, helping their struggling economies. In Dubhai the number of indoor ski slopes per capita has fallen to below 3.4, resulting in, well, I don't know what. At the end of the journey, you are faced with another opportunity to discard the bits of green paper you've been accumulating. This time, you shell out 100 bucks a night at a Super 8 twenty miles from the park. Most horrifying, you feel fortunate to have secured this rate. Perhaps this is because it pales in comparison to:

Step Two: Admission

Roller coasters are just barely visible over the horizon as you are directed to the nearest available parking space. Most parks have parking lots that make Kansas look positively cramped. Last year more people starved to death lost in parking lots outside Cedar Point than in all the world's natural deserts combined. Haggard and weary, you reach the gate only to be asked to surrender any and all cash you might be carrying. 401(k)s might also be confiscated. Decurrencied and searched to make sure you aren't smuggling food into the park, you are free to enjoy the wonder, fear, adrenaline, and pure joy of:

Step Three: Lines

If set end to end, the lines at Cedar Point would wrap around Rosie O'Donnell and Al Gore combined. We waited nearly two hours for one ride even though we went on two of the slower days of the season. Even more ferocious than the length of the lines are their contents. Horrifying as it may sound, these lines of composed of living human beings, among the strangest elements in the known universe. The denizens of lines provide great entertainment, but more than once I felt like calling for security and, on rather more occasions, the CDC. In line for the Maverick (a coaster more fun the Sarah Palin in a Gander Mountain without security cameras), we got to listen, for an hour and a half, to iPod Man. I should clarify; iPod Man is in no way associated with Apple Computers. I think he might be associated with the clinical trial of an inhibition-lowering drug that works a bit too well. For ninety minutes he listened to his iPod, happily belting out the lyrics at random intervals. Everyone would be minding their own business, standing around and pretending they weren't contemplating making a break for it, when suddenly a voice would launch into "He Reigns" a Newsboys song of which I used to be moderately fond. In a fantasy world, everyone would have joined in and a Billy Graham-style revival would have swept Sandusky, Ohio into the New Millennium. In this world everyone looked slightly nervous and resolutely avoided eye-contact. A real shame, I think. Creepiness aside, I give this guy credit for at least being willing to show some sign of worship in public.

Step Four: Things Man Was Not Meant To Know

After the two-hour line comes the two-minute ride. The rides themselves always have vaguely ominous names. Case in point: The Corkscrew. I admit, most of the mental images that come to mind are not positive. The common corkscrew's application beyond the realm of wine bottles does not bear contemplation. I like my nasal passages the way God made them. The coaster is nowhere near as sinister as the name implies; it simply contains a corkscrew-shaped loop. Now consider the Mantis. A mantis is a bug. It's not even poisonous. So the coaster won't be too vicious, right? Well...the Mantis is a coaster on which the riders stand astride a bicycle seat-like saddle and underneath a shoulder harness. The seat ratchets up, the harness ratchets down. The problem here is fairly evident to anyone familiar with classical American humor. The harness will invariably be a bit too low and the seat a bit too high. Add four g's and the situation is suddenly not funny at all to the victim and an absolute scream to whoever is standing next to him. I'm just glad I was the guy standing next to him. And don't even get me started on Top Thrill Dragster. Too late. Hah! This ride features a line slightly longer than the total length of the track. I wonder why, because TTD consists solely of a hydraulic launch system, a 400-foot tall hill, and a few dozen foolish victims. They recommend you leave behind easily lost things like limbs before boarding.

In summary, we give up time, money, safety, and sanity to simulate falling to our deaths. It just seems to me that there is an easier way.