Thursday, November 29, 2007
Romney vs. Giuliani
Mitt Romney called Rudy's New York a safe-haven for illegal immigrants. In counter, Rudy cited Mitt's own house as a safe-haven for illegal immigrants. Mitt's reply was pretty good, I thought. What happened was that Mitt and Anne hired a company to paint his house or something; do housework, whatever it was. And some of the workers that the company sent to their house were not in the US legally. Mitt asked Rudy if Mitt, as a homeowner, is supposed to pick up on the voices with accents outside, and ask to see that individual's papers. Mitt did a good job in his rebuttal. Mitt, as a homeowner and as the buyer of a seller's services, does not have the burden of law enforcement as to whether or not that seller's services are legal. Furthermore, simply having hired workers at one's house does not make it a sanctuary house. Illegals being in Mayor Giuliani's city does not compare to illegals being on Private Citizen, Homeowner Romney's property. Point goes to Mitt.
John McCain Needs to Work on His Logicking
Listening to a podcast that the Princeton Review publishes on LSAT logic for everyday life (found while perusing iTunes academic podcasts) has made me a more empowered skeptic. As I'm just starting out with this whole 'legitimately sound logic' thing, the catch-up affect has been kind and I'm realizing more and more my improvement recently in relation to my skeptical nature. My new-found prowess (or 'prower' because I'm male?) has been especially useful as I listen to presidential candidates discuss the issues.
I didn't watch the Republican debate last night. Even if the Costco didn't schedule me to work during the debate, AND I had convenient access to the CNN, I still probably wouldn't have watched it. They simply talk too much to keep my attention. I did, however, catch a recap on the Yahoo this morning. One of the clips that the Yahoo had selected was John McCain straight up calling ol' Ron Paul out on his stance of 'isolationism;' which point Ron Paul countered rather well, I thought. But Paul's rebuttal is beside the point. The point is McCain's logic. McCain said Paul's kind of isolationism is what started World War 2 when the isolationist US allowed Hitler to gain control.
Unfortunately, the legitimacy of McCain's parallel fell by the wayside in the name of 'I want to cheer for my candidate and nothing he says is going to change that.' An eruption of applause from the audience ended McCain's statement, showing that a lot of people agree with him, thus marking his argument as true, and ending any debate on whether or not he had a good point that we can use before that debate even started. BUT NOT ON MY BLOG!! Here, we take the logic apart a little.
Who knows what McCain actually meant? Here, I'm making the obvious interpretation that McCain probably meant 'because isolationism started WW2, avoiding an isolationist stance will also avoid (fill in the blank with any negative outcome pertaining to the Middle East).' Making a decision solely based on its past effectiveness is a flawed decision-making tactic. Just because I really enjoyed eating the chile rellano at Matta's doesn't mean I'll really like it at Chilis'. Chilis' was a huge let-down because I was using the bad tactic heretofore mentioned, assuming that all chile rellanos taste good, regardless the time eaten. There are more factors at work here, the biggest one being the difference in restaurant.
Sure, isolationism might not be the best way to go with regard to Mid-East conflict; but it's not because it 'started WW2.'
I didn't watch the Republican debate last night. Even if the Costco didn't schedule me to work during the debate, AND I had convenient access to the CNN, I still probably wouldn't have watched it. They simply talk too much to keep my attention. I did, however, catch a recap on the Yahoo this morning. One of the clips that the Yahoo had selected was John McCain straight up calling ol' Ron Paul out on his stance of 'isolationism;' which point Ron Paul countered rather well, I thought. But Paul's rebuttal is beside the point. The point is McCain's logic. McCain said Paul's kind of isolationism is what started World War 2 when the isolationist US allowed Hitler to gain control.
Unfortunately, the legitimacy of McCain's parallel fell by the wayside in the name of 'I want to cheer for my candidate and nothing he says is going to change that.' An eruption of applause from the audience ended McCain's statement, showing that a lot of people agree with him, thus marking his argument as true, and ending any debate on whether or not he had a good point that we can use before that debate even started. BUT NOT ON MY BLOG!! Here, we take the logic apart a little.
Who knows what McCain actually meant? Here, I'm making the obvious interpretation that McCain probably meant 'because isolationism started WW2, avoiding an isolationist stance will also avoid (fill in the blank with any negative outcome pertaining to the Middle East).' Making a decision solely based on its past effectiveness is a flawed decision-making tactic. Just because I really enjoyed eating the chile rellano at Matta's doesn't mean I'll really like it at Chilis'. Chilis' was a huge let-down because I was using the bad tactic heretofore mentioned, assuming that all chile rellanos taste good, regardless the time eaten. There are more factors at work here, the biggest one being the difference in restaurant.
Sure, isolationism might not be the best way to go with regard to Mid-East conflict; but it's not because it 'started WW2.'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)