The Observation Deck

How does the party that has been in power for 8 years, 4 of those years in a complete stance of power, sell themselves as "change?"

I mean I know Republican strategists have explained many times on TV, that they saw Hillary was getting no traction with the "lack of experience" campaign, and that saw they needed to co-opt or now own "change."

But how can you sell that to the American public without admitting Bush was a total failure, and hoping that 51% of the American voting public has no critical thought process. Last night McCain went through a long list of problems, corruption, lying, mistruth, perversion of the government, lobbyists, pork. He was talking of the Republicans that were cheering him!

Is this not under estimating how bright America is?


Just curious.


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Is this not under estimating how bright America is?

No.

Two terms of Bush and the success of McCain prove that Americans are not critical thinkers. If a message doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, our people have no patience for it.

This week's convention was a demonstration of leaders shamelessly working overtime to keep voters ignorant.

The Republicans will win. The destruction of the middle class, and four more years of America's decline will be the legacy of their "change".

We should all be embarrassed by our political process.

.

How does the party that has been in power for 8 years, 4 of those years in a complete stance of power, sell themselves as "change?"

Just my opinion, but, I didn't hear a PARTY trying to sell itself last night, I saw A MAN stand up and suggest that he wanted to change things in Washington and in his own political party.

The only inconsistency comes if John McCain truly IS just another four years of GWB. But your assumption that he will be does not, in itself, represent any kind of logical fallacy in his argument.

He was talking of the Republicans that were cheering him!

I saw two types of people in the audience... The ones that recognize that their party needs to get on the ball and get back in the game, and those that thought McCain wasn't talking about them.

If a message doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, our people have no patience for it.

Maybe it's just me, but I would say that Democratic bumber stickers far outsell their Republican counterparts.

Bret Callentine wrote:

How does the party that has been in power for 8 years, 4 of those years in a complete stance of power, sell themselves as "change?"

Just my opinion, but, I didn't hear a PARTY trying to sell itself last night, I saw A MAN stand up and suggest that he wanted to change things in Washington and in his own political party.

The only inconsistency comes if John McCain truly IS just another four years of GWB. But your assumption that he will be does not, in itself, represent any kind of logical fallacy in his argument.

He was talking of the Republicans that were cheering him!

I saw two types of people in the audience... The ones that recognize that their party needs to get on the ball and get back in the game, and those that thought McCain wasn't talking about them.

If a message doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, our people have no patience for it.

Maybe it's just me, but I would say that Democratic bumber stickers far outsell their Republican counterparts.

Bret


I hope you are right. I know some pretty damn good Republicans and it kills me to lump all together. This is generally why I use the "respect" of this administration as a qualifier.

However, I truly believe that John McCain was shown the bloody horse head in the bed, and that the term "Maverick" actually applies more as in the con man Maverick brother from the TV show Maverick.

He has gone against nearly every bill he has introduced, hence the debate with himself. While he was outragged and rightfully so over the "illegitimate" black baby story floated by Rove and friends in 2004, he has turned and now embraced that entire group to help run his campaign.

While outraged again rightfully so about the attacks on Sarah Palin daughter, he showed no such sympathy for the Obama family and the attacks from right wing bloggers.

I liked john McCain in 2004.

This is not that John McCain.

FWIW


.

It all depends which McCain shows up in the presidency. I liked the McCain of 8 years ago, I even voted for him in the Primary against Bush. But since then, it seems to me like he has sold out to the religious right.

When he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, Senator John McCain denounced religious right leader Jerry Falwell as an ''evil" force whose message of ''intolerance" hurt the GOP and America.

Today, McCain, who is all but officially on the presidential campaign trail, will deliver the commencement address at Falwell's evangelical Christian college. Though he's simply speaking to Liberty University graduates and their parents, the Arizona Republican's visit to the Lynchburg, Va., college is nonetheless freighted with broader political symbolism.

It is pretty scary how much they have forced him to change his views. He seemed to me to be a moderate and independent. But then he kowtowed to Bush even caving on torture - an activity he once denounced because of his own experience.

Apparently the neocon's have gotten to him and he is willing to have the war go on for 100 years and we can not afford that in terms of lives or dollars.

Now he has selected Palin as his running mate. What scares me is not her inexperience but her views. She does want change. Constitutional Amendments against abortion, banning books, she denys the science of global warming. We keep learning more and more things about her that lead me to believe if that is McCain's pick for VP, it gives us some insight into how he intends to lead the country. More war and change which will take away our rights. Not a positive combination in my humble opinion.

Two terms of Bush and the success of McCain prove that Americans are not critical thinkers.

My informed guess: every election irrespective of outcome demonstrates this to be true. Why? Because whatever you mean by critical thinking, it is a performed capability that isn't variable according to what's in your local water supply or what t-shirt one chooses to wear on election day, thus it doesn't just show up during one elections and then disappears in other elections.

It might well be possible to make a 'critically thoughtful' case for either side of highly polarized issues.

These suggestions noted, voting behavior and voter demographics is well researched by political and social scientists. If it's any consolation Steve, I bet Ph.D's tend to be Democrats by large margins, and, they are in the professional class trained to be critical thinkers.

***

There are Americans who are badly educated and there are some whose measurable intelligence is low and lower. Some aren't capable of critical thinking. To state the obvious here is to demonstrate the very elitism McBush will decry and run against.

The current of anti-reason and anti-intellectualism and anti-pointy headed ivy league elites is a deep current.

Still, that Mrs. Palin endorses Intelligent Design as a worthwhile subject for biology classes, would, in a better world disqualify her precisely because her endorsement reveals a deficit in critical thinking.

But we don't live in such a world. Critical thinking (and cognitive complexity,) are rarefied and rare capabilities.

More critially, for me, is that if she wins she will be a heartbeat away from being yet another President who feels the War in Iraq is part of "God's plan." Bush obviously had to back off his "crusade" stance early on concerning the wars in the middle east but she hasn't yet. I am a person who believes people can and should have deep felt religious beliefs but they should be personal and kept out of politics for the precisely the reason that the rest of the world believes, as a whole, in numerous ideals, gods, prophets, etc. and to hold one above another in the public eye and as a leader of a secular nation is dangerous and narrow minded.

The day our nation's military is a "task from God" is the day we have lost all sense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/0 ... ostComment

Still, that Mrs. Palin endorses Intelligent Design as a worthwhile subject for biology classes, would, in a better world disqualify her precisely because her endorsement reveals a deficit in critical thinking.

Did I miss the press release announcing that science has proved the absense of God?

Is this akin to the "critical thinking" that suggests that if a majority of scientists believe something to be accurate, than it automatically becomes fact?

Lynn you forgot that she wants creationism taught in schools which makes my skin crawl and I am a Christian. The Republicans keep talking about keeping family issues personal, yet they want to push their values on all of us. I just couldn't vote for McCain/Palin.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:My informed guess: every election irrespective of outcome demonstrates this to be true. Why? Because whatever you mean by critical thinking, it is a performed capability that isn't variable according to what's in your local water supply or what t-shirt one chooses to wear on election day, thus it doesn't just show up during one elections and then disappears in other elections.

It might well be possible to make a 'critically thoughtful' case for either side of highly polarized issues.

Stephen,

Yes, but only if we have enough information to do so. Unfortunately, with the all the news outlets within easy reach we are not trusted with real news and information.

From television news, we might get five words from a speech and an hour commentary on how those words might play with Midwestern voters. Being a Midwesterner, I might be concerned about those five words, but never have access to the rest of the speech, or any idea of context. News, information, and opinion are presented seamlessly, and interchangeably.

Add that to politicians and pundits that are often on a mission to redirect and disinform voters. With all of this in play, it may not be possible to make a “’critically thoughtful’ caseâ€

Bret,

thanks for rolling out your fabulous straw man. Just to help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

***

I made no comment about God. That you raise it, however, is somewhat damning in the context of a comeback about Intelligent Design.

Nor did I assert anything like this:

suggests that if a majority of scientists believe something to be accurate, than it automatically becomes fact?

Wow. I don't know what your education was all about, but I learned about the scientific method in 7th grade.

Here's a refresher from the University of Cincinnati:
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm

***

Now you want to give Intelligent Design a run for it, maybe start a thread about it, I would immensely enjoy hearing what demonstrable facts you will bring to the discussion.

Stephen,

No straw man intended. If I read your post correctly (please say so if otherwise) it suggests that endorsing the possibility of Intelligent Design reveals a lack of critical thinking.

I am merely suggesting that since facts in this matter have yet to be fully proven, the belief of one theory over another does not, in itself, represent a lack of critical thinking.

Also, I wish to point out that just because a person believes in Intelligent Design, does not automatically equate to an insistence that it be tought in schools. Me personally, all I insist on is that science teachers refrain from teaching THEORY as FACT no matter how popular it is.

Hi Steve.

Yup, some positions can't be logically defended!

The path around lack of information are all sorts of heuristics. I agree the quality of information presented is often dismal, but my sense also is that you have to know also what the value of information is, what the types of information are, how to contextualize information, and then, if you're going to actually use information operationally, one has to know how to do so; as it were: form propositions and 'operate' them.

***

The media, left or right, for me, tends to showcase highly educated people making fools of themselves. Most of the punditry are either among the stupidest people to have walked the earth, or, they are smart but have figured out what the financial benefits are to shallow pontificating and being celebrated for their ability to do so.

Alas, their "acts" plug into an audience willing to lap the gruel up.

I don't know what can be done about it. (I'm from the Pogo school, "I've seen the enemy, and he is us.")

So,

[quote]Just having “brightâ€

Bret,

it suggests that endorsing the possibility of Intelligent Design reveals a lack of critical thinking.

So, give me some critically thoughtful justification for including Intelligent Design in biology class.

For example, it would help if you could submit here on the Deck one vetted experiment done in the field of Intelligent Design that has demonstrated that a God-like force is necessary to explain any phenomena in biology.

***

You should spend sometime studying what the various definitions of the word theory are so you can integrate that the Theory of Evolution is not something biologists believe in, but rather is the proven framework for scientists generating hypotheses, designing tests of same, and using the results for establishing and refining facts about biological phenomena.

Again, stick your head here:

Refresher from the University of Cincinnati:
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm

***

I don't see anyway around the deficit in critical thinking made explicit by proponents of Intelligent Design.

Danielle Masters wrote:Lynn you forgot that she wants creationism taught in schools which makes my skin crawl and I am a Christian. The Republicans keep talking about keeping family issues personal, yet they want to push their values on all of us. I just couldn't vote for McCain/Palin.

I think that one can believe in both Creationism and Evolution -- i.e. some sort of intelligent design -- but Evolution is not just another theory or a different way of looking at things. It is proven, observable, scientific fact. It is as factual as the existence of gravity. It's not a matter of opinion or belief.

Furthermore, it's not so much that she's religious or believes in what the Bible says that 'concerns' me, but that she believes that there should be legislation that ensures that her religious beliefs are taught to the exculsion of other ways of looking at the world, or that choices that don't align with her religious beliefs should be taken away from me for my body and my own family.