There are a lot of simple ways to tell when your argument is wrong. There is one very specific on that I see all the time, and I want to talk about a bit more:
You try to tell other people what your opponent believes. *
* Exception - if you are an actual telepath and really can read minds, then tell me what your opponents think. Also, I have some questions about what my last date was thinking.
People do this all the time. It often happens when someone is proven wrong and is too arrogant to admit it. So instead of trying to figure out where they made a mistake, they look for a 'mistake' their opponent 'must have made'. Sometimes their opponent really was an idiot, and their own prejudice makes them think that all/most/many of their opponents must be that stupid.
Sometimes they were the idiot who totally failed to understand their opponent's intelligent argument. Instead they of understanding what their opponent really said, they twist it around to something idiotic. If I say "We evolved from primates", and some fool responds "Take that back about my mother!"
Note, if most of your opponents are that stupid, why didn't you win? When an adult can't beat an 'idiot', there must be something seriously wrong with the adult, or that 'idiot' is a lot more competent than you think.
So never talk about what your opponent believes - it always means you are wrong.
If you want to find out what your opponent believes, ASK THEM. If you want to write about it, look for something they said in print and you can point at and prove that particular opponent wrong. Why in print? Because that increases the chances you are talking about a belief held by more than just one strange guy.
More importantly, it doesn't matter what your opponent believes. Just because your opponent's argument is wrong doesn't mean you are right. Most of the old Fairy Tales were lies expressly to children in order to get them be good. There may not be a witch in the woods, but the kid still should NOT go into the woods. Bears may not have houses, but don't break into them, eat their food, and sleep in the beds.
So don't tell me what other people think, tell me what you think. Otherwise I will laugh at you for the arrogant, prejudiced, fake telepath that you are claiming to be.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
We need a President that ...
People love to talk about what we need in a President. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes they are right but irrelevant.
What do I mean by right but irrelevant? I mean they are referencing a quality that everyone has - often in an attempt to insult their opponent. "We need a president that ....wears clothing/breathes/talks English."
Lets discuss some of the qualities and which are right, wrong, and irrelevant. I am going to start with the irrelevant ones, because frankly, they are the most interesting.
These skills are necessary but irrelevant for one major reason - you can't win a Primary unless you already have all of them. For at least the last century, the US Presidency has been so valuable a prize, that the best men of a large, successful country (and not enough women, go Hillary!) have fought over it toe to toe. No matter what the other party says, a weak person can not win a national primary - it's too nasty a gauntlet. Whether it's your competition claiming you aren't an American citizen, claiming you had a black child out of wedlock, or calling up voters past midnight and pretending to work for your opponent, the US Presidency is not for the weak.
Similarly, making it past the Primaries, requires that you be a good leader, make the right decisions and willing to take risks. All of these qualities are more than tested long before you make it to the General Election. Yes one candidate may be slightly stronger than the other, but in the most extreme example, we are talking the difference between an 9 and 10, which isn't worth mentioning.
But people love to claim they have these qualities, implying their opponent doesn't. It's easy to claim a winning move took no courage, was not their idea, was an obvious decision, and not a high risk. Similarly, it's easy to claim a losing move was done out fear, after being pushed, a wrong decision, and was clearly far too risky. Then they claim that they wouldn't do such a thing - or they claim they never would have been put into that position in the first place. This is all bravado and lies. All serious Presidential Candidates have been strong people, good leaders, made good decisions, and were willing to take risks.
Next are the qualities people think you need, but are not important for a President.
Similarly, superior honesty is not necessary. The Presidency requires that we keep secrets and lie to other governments. Hopefully they won't lie to the American people but often you can't lie to your enemy without at least misinforming your own people. Past Presidents have lied to our enemies and it helped the country - that's pretty much the definition of a 'covert' operation. Part of being good at keeping secrets is being a good liar.
Charismatic and intelligence are also not needed because we can hire people to that part of the job - as long as you are not totally obnoxious or an idiot. A good speech writer and good advisers can take care of those parts of the job.
Religious/morale, Honest, Charismatic, Intelligent - these are all good qualities, that people like, so they pretend they are necessary for the job. But they don't substantially help a person be a better president.
That brings us to the qualities a good President needs, but aren't guaranteed by the process. Failing to have these make you far less effective as a President, and you can win the Primary without them.
Consensus Builder - as Obama demonstrated, and Trump is proving again, you do not have to be good at building a real consensus to get elected. You can simply be better than the alternatives. The problem is this limits your effectiveness tremendously. Aside from one major piece of legislation - Obamacare - we didn't as much out of Obama as some hoped. He was a good President, but not and FDR, nor a Reagan. Trump would be even worse. He can't get his own party' support, let alone the Democrats, who are most likely to rule the Senate (and the Supreme Court). But to be an effective leader, you need more than just the White House, you need to convince at least some of your political opponents to support your bills. Hillary is a lot better than Donald Trump when it comes to Consensus Building, she has won back the Black vote after losing it to Obama.
Also Consensus building is NOT negotiating. Ambassadors and Secretaries of State negotiate. Presidents do not negotiate. Negotiating means you strive for the best possible deal at all costs. Consensus means you give up the best possible deal in order to keep everyone friendly. You negotiate with your enemies, competitor, and clients. You build a consensus with you wife and Congress.
Finger on the Pulse of the Nation is a strange one. In truth, you do need it beat the Primary, but from the time you win the primary, the process does it's best to rip your hand off the pulse. You get surrounded by advisers, spin doctors, security, cut off from the people. It is extremely hard to maintain the sense of what 'regular' people are doing. Without it, you come up with horrible ideas that everyone hates and don't understand why they hate them. The ability to stay in touch with the common man is tough. Let's be honest here, neither Hillary or the Donald have any idea how normal people live. Trump says he does, but then he thinks he will win the Mexican and Women vote. Honestly, he understands how a certain subset of the US (disaffected male non-hispanic white voters) work, but is clueless about the rest. Lies - even self delusions - don't help you out here.
Good Judge of Character: the ability to pick the right people for the right job is key. If you are smart enough and charismatic enough, then you don't need this skill to win the Primary. But being President takes more work than winning the Primary - no one can do it alone. You need to be able to pick the right people who will do their jobs well. Again, neither Hillary nor Trump has a good record. Trump has many bad calls when it comes to failed businesses, and Hillary has issues with the people she trusted for email security and for state security in Libya.
Which brings me to Flexibility. You need to be willing to admit when you were wrong and change your opinion. Why? Because no one is right all the time. If you were right all the time, that means you were unwilling to take risks. If you don't take risks, you can never be wrong - but you will always be behind the times, leading from the rear. It means not pushing for Gay Rights, not telling Gorbachev to "Take Down This Wall." because you are afraid of being wrong. The only way to take risks is to accept that occasionally you will be wrong. Trump is good about walking mistakes back, but refuses to admit that what he originally said was wrong. He lies about it - and that pisses off his opponents who know he is lying. Hillary on the other hand, is more willing to admit she was wrong (despite being wrong less often than Trump). She has admitted mistakes graciously.
Note, most of the other Republican candidates failed because they never had their Finger on ANYONE'S Pulse. Trump at least knew what white males were thinking. If Bernie Sanders had been more Flexible and a better Consensus Builder, he would have been a better nominee. If Trump could figure out what gay, black, Mexican women really want (and be willing to support it), or if Sanders found a way to walk back some of the socialism and compromise with conservatives, they would be far better candidates.
Right now, Hillary is the best we have. She is good at Consensus and is Flexible when it comes to the tough choices. She needs to get better at judging other people's character and find some way to regain a sense of what other people want.
What do I mean by right but irrelevant? I mean they are referencing a quality that everyone has - often in an attempt to insult their opponent. "We need a president that ....wears clothing/breathes/talks English."
Lets discuss some of the qualities and which are right, wrong, and irrelevant. I am going to start with the irrelevant ones, because frankly, they are the most interesting.
- Strong Willed
- Good Leader
- Makes the Right Decisions
- Willing to Take Risks
These skills are necessary but irrelevant for one major reason - you can't win a Primary unless you already have all of them. For at least the last century, the US Presidency has been so valuable a prize, that the best men of a large, successful country (and not enough women, go Hillary!) have fought over it toe to toe. No matter what the other party says, a weak person can not win a national primary - it's too nasty a gauntlet. Whether it's your competition claiming you aren't an American citizen, claiming you had a black child out of wedlock, or calling up voters past midnight and pretending to work for your opponent, the US Presidency is not for the weak.
Similarly, making it past the Primaries, requires that you be a good leader, make the right decisions and willing to take risks. All of these qualities are more than tested long before you make it to the General Election. Yes one candidate may be slightly stronger than the other, but in the most extreme example, we are talking the difference between an 9 and 10, which isn't worth mentioning.
But people love to claim they have these qualities, implying their opponent doesn't. It's easy to claim a winning move took no courage, was not their idea, was an obvious decision, and not a high risk. Similarly, it's easy to claim a losing move was done out fear, after being pushed, a wrong decision, and was clearly far too risky. Then they claim that they wouldn't do such a thing - or they claim they never would have been put into that position in the first place. This is all bravado and lies. All serious Presidential Candidates have been strong people, good leaders, made good decisions, and were willing to take risks.
Next are the qualities people think you need, but are not important for a President.
- Religious/Good Christian/Morale/"Character"
- Honest/Trustworthy
- Charismatic (more than the top 10%)
- Intelligence (smarter than the top 10%)
Similarly, superior honesty is not necessary. The Presidency requires that we keep secrets and lie to other governments. Hopefully they won't lie to the American people but often you can't lie to your enemy without at least misinforming your own people. Past Presidents have lied to our enemies and it helped the country - that's pretty much the definition of a 'covert' operation. Part of being good at keeping secrets is being a good liar.
Charismatic and intelligence are also not needed because we can hire people to that part of the job - as long as you are not totally obnoxious or an idiot. A good speech writer and good advisers can take care of those parts of the job.
Religious/morale, Honest, Charismatic, Intelligent - these are all good qualities, that people like, so they pretend they are necessary for the job. But they don't substantially help a person be a better president.
That brings us to the qualities a good President needs, but aren't guaranteed by the process. Failing to have these make you far less effective as a President, and you can win the Primary without them.
- Consensus builder.
- Finger on the Pulse
- Good Judge of Character
- Flexibility
Consensus Builder - as Obama demonstrated, and Trump is proving again, you do not have to be good at building a real consensus to get elected. You can simply be better than the alternatives. The problem is this limits your effectiveness tremendously. Aside from one major piece of legislation - Obamacare - we didn't as much out of Obama as some hoped. He was a good President, but not and FDR, nor a Reagan. Trump would be even worse. He can't get his own party' support, let alone the Democrats, who are most likely to rule the Senate (and the Supreme Court). But to be an effective leader, you need more than just the White House, you need to convince at least some of your political opponents to support your bills. Hillary is a lot better than Donald Trump when it comes to Consensus Building, she has won back the Black vote after losing it to Obama.
Also Consensus building is NOT negotiating. Ambassadors and Secretaries of State negotiate. Presidents do not negotiate. Negotiating means you strive for the best possible deal at all costs. Consensus means you give up the best possible deal in order to keep everyone friendly. You negotiate with your enemies, competitor, and clients. You build a consensus with you wife and Congress.
Finger on the Pulse of the Nation is a strange one. In truth, you do need it beat the Primary, but from the time you win the primary, the process does it's best to rip your hand off the pulse. You get surrounded by advisers, spin doctors, security, cut off from the people. It is extremely hard to maintain the sense of what 'regular' people are doing. Without it, you come up with horrible ideas that everyone hates and don't understand why they hate them. The ability to stay in touch with the common man is tough. Let's be honest here, neither Hillary or the Donald have any idea how normal people live. Trump says he does, but then he thinks he will win the Mexican and Women vote. Honestly, he understands how a certain subset of the US (disaffected male non-hispanic white voters) work, but is clueless about the rest. Lies - even self delusions - don't help you out here.
Good Judge of Character: the ability to pick the right people for the right job is key. If you are smart enough and charismatic enough, then you don't need this skill to win the Primary. But being President takes more work than winning the Primary - no one can do it alone. You need to be able to pick the right people who will do their jobs well. Again, neither Hillary nor Trump has a good record. Trump has many bad calls when it comes to failed businesses, and Hillary has issues with the people she trusted for email security and for state security in Libya.
Which brings me to Flexibility. You need to be willing to admit when you were wrong and change your opinion. Why? Because no one is right all the time. If you were right all the time, that means you were unwilling to take risks. If you don't take risks, you can never be wrong - but you will always be behind the times, leading from the rear. It means not pushing for Gay Rights, not telling Gorbachev to "Take Down This Wall." because you are afraid of being wrong. The only way to take risks is to accept that occasionally you will be wrong. Trump is good about walking mistakes back, but refuses to admit that what he originally said was wrong. He lies about it - and that pisses off his opponents who know he is lying. Hillary on the other hand, is more willing to admit she was wrong (despite being wrong less often than Trump). She has admitted mistakes graciously.
Note, most of the other Republican candidates failed because they never had their Finger on ANYONE'S Pulse. Trump at least knew what white males were thinking. If Bernie Sanders had been more Flexible and a better Consensus Builder, he would have been a better nominee. If Trump could figure out what gay, black, Mexican women really want (and be willing to support it), or if Sanders found a way to walk back some of the socialism and compromise with conservatives, they would be far better candidates.
Right now, Hillary is the best we have. She is good at Consensus and is Flexible when it comes to the tough choices. She needs to get better at judging other people's character and find some way to regain a sense of what other people want.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Don't compare Trump to Hitler - Trump is nicer than Hitler
Everyone loves to compare their political opponent to Hitler. He is the 'go-to' bad guy. Unarguably evil, unarguably a bad military and governmental leader - despite having significant public speaking skills, he makes for a powerful and therefor overused comparison.
Let me be very clear - Donald Trump is not Hitler. There are several ways that Trump is better. Hitler was stupider than Trump (Hitler dropped out of college and repeatedly screwed up good military strategy). Few if any people will disagree when I say that Donald Trump is nicer than Hitler. (Good T Shirt...) That statement is pretty clearly true. A low bar, but Trump can make it over the bar.
But there IS a World War II leader that Trump is comparable too. No, I am not going to compare Trump to other bad guys. It's not Stalin or Mussolini. It's Henri Petain, leader of Vichy France, the 'Lion of Verdun' that surrendered to Nazi Germany, and was later sentenced to death for his treason (sentence was commuted to life in prison).
The similarities are clear. Petain was a bigot, that refused to help refugees based on things he had heard about their religion. Previously he demanded a giant wall to keep invading murders out.
Petain was an anti-Semite that went beyond preventing Jews from entering France, he also specifically removed protections originally granted to french Jews. (source) He was scared that the Jews would not be loyal to France - and instead would engage in acts of violence, perhaps try to take over France. In truth, the Jews were just fleeing persecution. Trump, like Petain, want's to block a group of refugees - Muslims in Trump's case - from entering the US.
Petain was one of the major forces behind the Maginot Line - a giant wall that was supposed to keep Germans out of France. (source) But the Germans had airplanes to fly over the wall. It was also so big, that it had week spots - too expensive to build a strong wall that large. Similarly, Trump want's to keep Mexican out because he thinks they are murders. Petain at least was right about Germany, but Trump doesn't even have that going for him.
Petain also married a woman 20 years younger than him, violated the Constitution of France, and ran the government along the lines of his previous profession (military) rather than using the normal political means. Trump has married a woman 20 years younger than him, has been told by the military that they will not obey illegal orders to torture the family of enemy soldiers, and claims that he will run the government like his previous profession (business).
Donald Trump is nothing more than America's Henri Petain. We can't afford to let Trump do to America, what Petain did to France.
We need to do better. We need someone that does NOT simply try to offer up simple, obvious solutions to complex problem. Because if the answer was simple, we would have already solved it.
Real life is complex and requires harder, more difficult solutions. Simple solutions are simply wrong. Walls haven't worked since the invention of the airplane. Judging people - even for a short amount of time - on their religion is called prejudice, and history has shown that it is evil, not good.
Let me be very clear - Donald Trump is not Hitler. There are several ways that Trump is better. Hitler was stupider than Trump (Hitler dropped out of college and repeatedly screwed up good military strategy). Few if any people will disagree when I say that Donald Trump is nicer than Hitler. (Good T Shirt...) That statement is pretty clearly true. A low bar, but Trump can make it over the bar.
But there IS a World War II leader that Trump is comparable too. No, I am not going to compare Trump to other bad guys. It's not Stalin or Mussolini. It's Henri Petain, leader of Vichy France, the 'Lion of Verdun' that surrendered to Nazi Germany, and was later sentenced to death for his treason (sentence was commuted to life in prison).
The similarities are clear. Petain was a bigot, that refused to help refugees based on things he had heard about their religion. Previously he demanded a giant wall to keep invading murders out.
Petain was an anti-Semite that went beyond preventing Jews from entering France, he also specifically removed protections originally granted to french Jews. (source) He was scared that the Jews would not be loyal to France - and instead would engage in acts of violence, perhaps try to take over France. In truth, the Jews were just fleeing persecution. Trump, like Petain, want's to block a group of refugees - Muslims in Trump's case - from entering the US.
Petain was one of the major forces behind the Maginot Line - a giant wall that was supposed to keep Germans out of France. (source) But the Germans had airplanes to fly over the wall. It was also so big, that it had week spots - too expensive to build a strong wall that large. Similarly, Trump want's to keep Mexican out because he thinks they are murders. Petain at least was right about Germany, but Trump doesn't even have that going for him.
Petain also married a woman 20 years younger than him, violated the Constitution of France, and ran the government along the lines of his previous profession (military) rather than using the normal political means. Trump has married a woman 20 years younger than him, has been told by the military that they will not obey illegal orders to torture the family of enemy soldiers, and claims that he will run the government like his previous profession (business).
Donald Trump is nothing more than America's Henri Petain. We can't afford to let Trump do to America, what Petain did to France.
We need to do better. We need someone that does NOT simply try to offer up simple, obvious solutions to complex problem. Because if the answer was simple, we would have already solved it.
Real life is complex and requires harder, more difficult solutions. Simple solutions are simply wrong. Walls haven't worked since the invention of the airplane. Judging people - even for a short amount of time - on their religion is called prejudice, and history has shown that it is evil, not good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)