The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Compromise a dirty word?

There are those that think you should never compromise on anything, while others are always looking for a compromise right out of the starting gate. The situation should be tested prior to even considering a compromise. Is it a matter of principle? If so, compromise should rarely even be considered. If it is not a matter of principle, compromise should be considered right away.

In the recent Senate judicial confirmation saga, compromise should have been nowhere on the table. Confirmation of judges is an area of principle. Tradition, history and the will of the people were behind allowing a vote on these judges. Traditionally judge confirmations are not filibustered. They are given a vote based on ability not their judicial philosophy. Historically presidents have enjoyed a high percentage of their judicial confirmations including appellate level and higher. The will of the people is reflected in the growth of the Republican Senate majority in recent elections including the ouster of obstructionist Tom Daschle.

Other factors to consider are: Do I need a compromise seeing I will win what I want? What would the other side do if they were in my position? A compromise is supposed to be used to eliminate a road block. There was no road block here. A simple vote would have removed the road block, so why compromise? Also, if the tables were turned and the Democrats were in the majority and had the votes for a rule change, it would be done without the blink of an eye. It is shocking that the Democrats and liberal leaning media insist that Republicans play by lower rules than Democrats. It is more shocking that the Republicans stoop to obey this demand while in the majority. It is like being challenged to a fist fight but the opponent insists you tie your hands behind your back. That spectacle is an embarrassment to see.

Well it is done. Let us hope that when the Democrats inevitably break the spirit of the compromise by claiming every nominee is "extreme", that these weak kneed Republicans utilize the escape clause to do what needed to be done today.

Monday, May 16, 2005

A question of patriotism

One of the most illogical things I continue to hear is that an individual can be a patriot and at the same time use the power of the press or office to tear down, humiliate or weaken their country. While any patriot would support unpatriotic freedom of speech, do not cloak it in patriotism. Do not cheer when our military takes a hit (on the field or in the press). Do not express glee when our economy is challenged. Do not welcome criticism of our country from foreign sources. Brothers and sisters can say the nastiest things to each other, but woe to an outsider that gives the slightest insult.

It is especially disgusting to see one who has highly benefited from the greatness of the US, yet will criticize the US here and abroad.

Finally, it is really amazing that a citizen of any country in the world is welcome to love and support his coutry, except America. While those of other countries can wave their flags, celebrate their festivities, take pride in the accomplishments of their atheletes - the Americans must keep quiet, a low profile, apologize for the great things she is and does.

The next time one of these traitors asks "Are you questioning my patriotism", answer them with a resounding "Yes!"

World View - don't bet on it

We hear alot about the importance of having a "world view". There are two kinds of countries: those who don't claim to have a world view and those who claim to have a world view yet do not. Just look at the "icons" we are asked to look to - France has a France view, Germany has a Germany view. You can add Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, Syria and down the line of countries that put their interests above the world's interest. When you look at aid and concessions to the world community the USA is probably the country with the largest world view out there - yet it is the most bashed for not having this view. This tells us that what they really mean by world view is to yield the sovereignty of your country to the world body. It is striking that the only country being asked (directly or indirectly) to yield sovereignty is the US. What is more striking is the number of people in this country willing to go along with such an absurd demand.

Friday, May 13, 2005

Don't fear labels

I often hear an individual shy away from a label that someone tries to describe him with. They will say they "don't like labels". I say if the label is wrong, supply the correct one. Providing a correct label is an act of courage and shows decisiveness. To avoid any label whatsoever hints at deceit, waffling or perhaps ignorance. Some do not want a label, because they want to talk out of one side of their mouth today and the other side on a later date. One who dodges labels wants to float down the lazy river of life and go wherever the current takes them. One who embraces labels wants to be a steamboat charging down the river on course. Mark one who fears labels, because that is a person that likely deserves mistrust.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Evasion - a modern substitute for logic

There seems to be a growing trend among the spinmeisters to never yield a point no matter how much they are nailed by logic and/or facts. I am sure it has always been around to some degree, but at a fevered pitch lately. When one is confident that they will prove their premise in the end, one does not mind yielding a minor point during the dialogue. The strategy on both sides is to win small battles step by step since nobody will admit their premise is wrong right off the bat. So one begins attempting to prove small step 1 in their premise hoping the other side will concede that portion. Having gained a concession, probe deeeper into the premise to gain concessions for steps 1, 2,3, etc. and finally win the argument.

Again, when one is confident in the final outcome they do not mind yielding a point or two. It is great sport to yield a point or two only to drive back and win three or four points with superior reasoning. Many unfortunately come to the discussion with a stern determination to evade yielding any points. They will go to great lengths even to the point of making far-fetched ridiculous claims - looking like a complete fool - merely to avoid yielding a point. The result is that alot of hot air is expelled and no solutions are determined. Welcome to our government officials and their lackeys at work.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Logic failure not limited by education

One would think that illogical thought is limited to the uneducated masses, but that is not the case. While it is true that those with less education may struggle to clearly articulate their views, the educated often clearly articulate illogical hogwash. One strong enemy of logic is bias. We all have preconceived beliefs that are difficult to dislodge even in the face of fool-proof reasoning. When our bias is threatened by well articulated reason, we are tempted to respond with irrational emotion rather than even consider that we are wrong.

Sunday, May 08, 2005

Is the truth somewhere in the middle?

We have often heard in a dispute people using the expression "The truth is somewhere in the middle." Is this tue? Sometimes it is, but just because something is sometimes the case does not make it a foregone conclusion. It is human nature for most to wish to avoid conflict. This leads to satisfaction in compromising too early in the game. It causes people to swallow ridiculous concepts like there are no absolutes. "Im OK, you're OK." The fact is the truth is more often on one end and fallacy on the other end. A true leader will seek the truth first and resort to compomise under rare conditions. The media would like to feed us a lie that politicians who take a stand and remain resolute are doing the wrong thing. The fact is most will respect a man for having a backbone and keeping his word even if they disagree with him. A man who compromises just to avoid conflict is worthy only of disdain.

Friday, May 06, 2005

Front Page Spin

Some stories are too obvious to remain silent, or to hide so the next tool to use is "Spin". The story is in an obvious location and if left to "just the facts" the reader's opinion would not be desired. So the media takes the facts and reports them in a way that changes the way readers would view an event. Sometimes the writer will provide outright opinion in the news story using provocative questions, humor or hand-feeding possible ways to view it. Often the writer will interview and quote a source they know is likely to state as they desire it. Conversely, they will avoid interviewing sources they know will make undesired statements. If they want to appear that they are trying to be fair, though, they will interview and then leave out whole or partial damning quotes. In recent years as the monopoly of a one-sided viewpoint is being broken, the media is being much less careful to mask their spin and are getting quite bold about it.

When you absolutely must report - hide it

Sometimes media outlets are embarrassed into reporting on an item they would much rather be silent on. So the next best thing to silence is to bury a story where it is not likely to be read by many. They can say they reported on it, while snickering over the fact that most will not see it.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Silence is a powerful tool

Can you imagine having the goal of merely reporting what happens in the world. "I want to be a journalist so I can research an event and accurately report exactly what happened." Right. When blood was spilled to gain among other rights the Freedom of the Press, the goal surely was not just having the right to "report what happens". Was it not the right to use the press to shape public opinion; whether it be to fight against tyranny or make the world a better place. Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword and all journalists believe that. Why then do they resist admitting that they go beyond merely reporting the news, and try to influence how people think. It is not wrong to want to use the tools at your disposal to have an affect on the world around us so why do they try to mask it? Either they believe their influence is more effective if people think they are objective, or they want to cause harm rather than good.

One of the most powerful tools at the disposal of the media is silence. Sure they can skew a story with words, but what if some events are reported on while others are withheld? When a leader shows some backbone and makes a resolute decision opinion can certainly be shaped if negative results are reported while positive results are filtered out. People make decisions by weighing facts. If only part of the facts are given, decision making is severely hampered.

It is one thing to report an event with an opinion. It is hard to believe a writer can separate his writing from his belief system. It is wrong to withhold information. When a news source consistently withholds information, it is time to reject that news source. Why would we knowingly fill our heads with tripe?

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Introductory Post

Welcome to my blog. My first post will be on the lighter side. Keep in mind when reading my posts, I do not claim to consistently produce bullet proof logic. I do intend for logic to be an influencing factor in what I write. I see too many postings that are driven too much by emotion. While I can get emotional, I hope to constrain that with reasoned thought to keep from going over the emotional cliff. Come back for more.