Since the November 2008 elections, conservatives have been feeling bit of disillusionment over the results and their subsequent relief from duty in Washington. This is a great opportunity to learn about debate techniques and tactics that may help them to win over new supporters for Sarah Palin in 2012. I'll go over a few of them here:

Start the debate with a lie

Yeah, those senior citizens are really agitators. They don't want the end of life counselin.

Your opponent has researched all manner of subjects formally and informally. He or she is knowledgeable on every possible point of debate ... except one that you have made up out of whole cloth. There is no way that they can be prepared to respond to something they have never heard about before, so be sure to surprise them with the biggest, most damning lie you can think of. It's even better if there's some small truth buried in that lie. For example, you could take real words and phrases out of a bill like "consultation" and "end-of-life" (preferably out of order) and make up a definition for it like "death panel." They'll be so confused they'll won't be able to respond and, once they've figured it out, they won't be able to say anything because nobody wants to use the word "lie" in a public debate.

 

Continue with words, not phrases

Have you read it and heard Barry just take a pill quote

When your opponent tries to tell you you're mistaken about "end of life counseling," just say some words. Use words that sound like you're trying to say something so your audience will just think they didn't quite hear you, but they'll think your opponent is stupid for not understanding what you said. This also raises your opponent's blood pressure by signaling to them that there is no hope for intelligent conversation any more.

 

Make references to a respected organization

Yes, it's in there - every 5 years or so the elderly get such converstation[sic] in the bill. Sickens me. AARP is about to lose a lot of members for their stance regarding this version of health care reform.

Respected organizations have influence regardless of which side of the debate they're on. If you can demonize people who agree with your opponent, you're reinforcing your opponent's demonic nature. In this case, you've also suggested that a large group of citizens already agree with your lie by suggesting that they disagree with your opponent's supporter. If that sentence is hard for you to follow, don't worry, just take it on faith.

 

Move the goalposts and lie again

Colleges are ripping us off and is[sic] to expensive.

Public sub has allowed the lib colleges to jack prices up at all our expense. This cycle keeps growing at all our expense. Sticking to bill to the people who would be hiring them after schooling.

Wow U need to diversify your info portfolio I am in a university foundation board big guy.

Moving the goalposts is a well-known strategy that, like nuclear warheads, has no effective counter. Every time your opponent gets close to showing you their faulty version of reality, bring up another aspect of reality you've been denying. This will keep their overly complicated mind working on many things at a time, allowing you to sit back and think about what you'll make up next.

 

Take your ball and bat and go home

No more name calling please. ... if u don't like it don't read it. Just turn me in to the nazi-like snitch govt website like a good comrade

The best way to tell someone who has the audacity to point out that you're lying and denying reality is to call them a name caller while calling them names. They'll be too busy trying to work through the hypocrisy of your statements to get to the core of what you're saying. That will make sure they won't have a decent response ready until you've unfriended them on Facebook. Because really, anyone who disagrees with your lies can't be a friend.

These tactics are sure to win over the opposition to your point of view. Once you've ignored the opposition, you won't know anyone who doesn't support Sarah Palin.

 

Facebook | Twitter | Reddit | Stumble

Way back in the American Colonial days, Great Brittan passed a law that allowed the East India Tea company to export tea directly to America. This act reduced taxes on tea in Brittan to provide economic advantage to the East India Tea Company and caused taxes in America, including those on tea, to be raised. We Americans felt that we had a right to have a say in the taxes we paid and rebelled by putting on Indian costumes and throwing an entire shipload of tea into Boston Harbor. As the catchy chant of "no taxation without representation" allegedly took hold, several economic escalations meant that this act eventually resulted in the American Revolution.

In response to President Obama's plan to raise the income tax on individuals making over $250,000 and the billions of dollars in economic stimulus going to private industry and local governments, there has been a lot of noise about taxation. Michelle Bachman asks "If our founders thought taxation without representation was bad, what would they think of representation with taxation?" On April 15th, there are always people who picket the US Postal Service and boycott taxes. This year, there was a small movement called "tea bagging" where people who didn't like the taxes their representatives would be voting on waved tea bags in the air and tried to make a connection between their actions and the Boston Tea Party.

These tax boycotters say that taxes are unconstitutional and that there is no requirement to pay them. Article I, section 8 of the constitution gives that argument a hard time:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

The tea baggers claim that representation with taxation is bad, but taxation with representation is one of many things the Revolution was fighting for.

Incitement of treason aside, there are some problems with arguing against taxation. Lets contemplate some alternate funding mechanisms.

Taxes build roads. Without taxes, all roads would have to be toll roads. That doesn't seem so bad for interstate highways and local through ways when toll roads are miles apart; high speed limits would get you to your destination rapidly despite stopping to toss your change in the hopper. But if the entire downtown street system is toll-based, there would either have to be a tollbooth at every corner or at every entrance to the city street system. If you think rush-hour traffic is bad, just wait until the 10 drivers ahead of you have to dig for change to get to the next red light.

Taxes build bridges. I'll admit that this is closely related to roads, but there are some different hurdles to jump with bridges. Right now it costs $6 for a car to get from San Francisco to Sausalito. If you want to make that trip without taking a bridge, well... I just checked, and you can't. There are some bridges in the area that are not toll bridges, but they're miles out of the way. Many large cities, ironically with majority liberal populations, have gotten used to the idea of paying for the privilege to enter and leave the city, but people across the country would grumble loudly if they had to pay to go to work every day.

Taxes provide public safety. Remember that guy who was driving erratically and you had to swerve suddenly to avoid him, almost hitting a car in the next lane? Remember he got pulled over for drunk driving a few miles later and you were glad to be a little safer? Without taxes, there are three options I can think of for road safety. Either nobody would be on the roads to protect you from that guy or you'd be dealing with private security companies who would not be held to the same standards as the State Troopers, or their salaries would have to be paid by fines and tolls. Many people believe that the police have ticket quotas that need to be met every month and I'm not going to speak directly to that but just imagine if your salary depended directly on the number of tickets you wrote every day.

Taxes provide public education. Let's ignore the complete lack of public schools for the time being. Anyone who has a college degree can tell you that they are expensive and college degrees from private institutions doubly so. The University of Minnesota currently charges about $400 per credit. That tuition money is directly matched by the State of Minnesota because the state, through the elected representatives of its population, has determined that college education is good for the general welfare of that population. In addition to tuition-matching, the University also receives $125M from the State. Without these public funds from taxes, tuition at this state university would have to more than double, placing a college education out of reach for many Minnesotans. There would also be a distinct lack of Federal grants and student loans regardless of the institution in question, making that education more expensive for all citizens.

Taxes provide law enforcement. When I was a kid, my house was broken into while we were out of town for the weekend. Threat of jail is what keeps most people from stealing from other people. Without centralized law enforcement, we would have to rely on private industry to provide local officers, judges, and prisons. Those people would have to be paid through some billing mechanism, much like a tax, and you can bet that people who were able to pay more would get more patrol officers and fewer complaints against them.

Taxes provide laws. Law enforcement is irrelevant without laws to enforce. The representation in national government that this country fought so long and so hard to obtain is built by the people, for the people and on the backs of the people. Our taxes pay for enforcement and protection of the constitution, our nation, and our way of life. Private industry providing constitutional protection would lead directly to representation of wealth and land because there is no profit in representing the poor and homeless.

In short, a country without taxes would look a lot like the old American West. Roads would be build at random, justice would be served at random, infrastructure would be built at random, education would take place at random. If you hadn't already died of polio or smallpox, you probably wouldn't be reading this blog, or any blog, because the Internet would never have been funded by DARPA and you may never have learned to read. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."

Facebook | Twitter | Reddit | Stumble

With Justice Roberts' misreading of the constitution at yesterday's inauguration, I thought I'd take a moment to discuss constitutional history. Article II Section 1 of the constitution states the following

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

You'll notice that there are two parts where Justice Roberts misstated the oath (and President Obama followed along.) The first was "I will execute the office of President of the United States faithfully." And the second was "So help me god."

There is argument that George Washington added the words "so help me god" to the end of his oath, but there is little evidence to back that up. Regardless, the person taking the oath has a constitutional right under the first amendment not only to freedom of speech but to freedom of religion and is therefore allowed to add these and any other words to the oath provided the original 35 words are stated in their correct order. The officiant of the swearing-in has no such right as he is acting as an agent of the United States and is injecting religion into a secular ceremony.

This is the basis of a legal action taken against Justice Roberts prior to the event by Michael Newdow and several other individuals and organizations. For more information, listen to the podcast of the Minnesota Atheists' Atheists' Talk radio show from January 4th 2009. In this show, Michael Newdow points out that this is not a case of atheists imposing their religion on the government but a case of keeping the government from imposing their religion on the nation.

When Keith Ellison was elected to the House of Representatives, christian conservatives were up in arms over a Muslim serving the nation along side Christians and Jews. I think they feared that, one day, the Chief Justice might add "so help me Allah" to the oath. It's not rocket science that freedom of religion applies to all religions and removing this tendency to add religion to government will prevent future leaders with different religions from doing the same.

There's a good chance that the oath was given officially a few minutes before the public event and that it was done to the letter of the constitution at that time. But doesn't the rest of the nation diserve to hear the ceremony performed correctly too?

Update: There was a do-over at 19:35 EST, but only a few reporters were present. Audio is available from CBS on Politico.com. The "so help me god" part was still there and I find it interesting that Justice Roberts states it as a question both times.

--photo from emilykreed on flickr.

Facebook | Twitter | Reddit | Stumble

We've all done it before.  Gone online, checked prices for some piece of electronics, found the best price at Best Buy, packed up the car, driven the 10 miles to the nearest store and discovered that the price in-store is higher than the price on-line. It happens so often that there are tips all over the Internet for how to get the on-line price instead. You could try to show them the on-line price from one of the computers in the store, but we already know that the in-store network shows higher prices. You could show them a printout of the price from their website, but they'll often complain that having a store costs more than having a website so it makes sense for them to charge more in the store or that pricing is different all over the country so they can't match the website. One clever blogger ordered in-store pickup from the website while actually in the store. She had to wait quite a while for the confirmation emails to all go through but, after 20 minutes, saved $100 on Stargate Atlantis DVDs.

So, what does this tell us about Best Buy? Well for one, they are essentially using bait-and-switch tactics by luring you into the store with one price and then giving you another. But the really sinister part is that they are charging people an extra fee for not having Internet access. You obviously have internet access and can avoid the problem, so who doesn't?

Since 2000, people have been noting that income has a direct relation to Internet access. Over time, this is getting better, but that "digital divide" still exists. Anyone can go into their local library and use the Internet and a lot of people do. But how likely is it that they'll be surfing Lifehacker or Gizmodo or one of the other blogs that talked about this issue? My bet is that most library-based Internet users have a specific task to complete and that's pretty much all they do. More phones are going online, but my G1 cost $200 plus $25/month for service.

What's my point? Capitalism is, in theory, a good system. People who work hard and are successfull get more money and people who work less and are less successfull get less money. But there are other ways than work to be successfull. People who already have more money (some call it "captial") can use it to get more money and people who have less money have to use more money to get by.

Facebook | Twitter | Reddit | Stumble

There's a disturbing trend in America these days. The celebration of winter solstice is getting less and less time in main-stream media and people are trying to associate their religions with the lengthening of days.

Everywhere I turn, people are talking about Chanukah, Christmas and even Kwanzaa rather than the return of the all-powerful life-giver The Sun. Christmas is particularly guilty of stealing light from our holiday celebrations.

The US government chose to recognize Christmas as a national holiday 1870 and I see this as the beginning of the political war on Winter Solstice. Since then, there's only been more and more downplay of the real reason for the season.

We must find a way to stop the war on Winter Solstice and take the holiday back from these heathens. Luckily, we have several iconic figures on our side. The Krampus, AKA Sinterklaas, has been biding his time in the guise of Santa Claus and it shouldn't take much to convince him to join our cause. Jack Frost has always been with us, causing Christmas shoppers to break presents and bones on the ice.

If we can get enough Christians to drink themselves into oblivion in the name of Jesus, I think we can take over, so go out there, distract them with a Jul Log and spike some Egg Nog!

Facebook | Twitter | Reddit | Stumble

Remember way back in 2007 when we found out that Walter Reed Army Medical Center was in disrepair? That was pretty appalling wasn't it? I remember being mad at my government for not taking care of the troops and mad at the workers who waited so long to say anything.

It turns out there's a new reason to be mad at my government for not taking care of the troops. Back in March, in an effort to give special recognition to military personnell who were injured in combat rather than in other military duties, such as training, the armed services sub-committee narrowed the definition of "combat related" disabilities. The Pentagon has interpereted things a little differently.

Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more surgeries. ... [T]he Pentagon ruled that [her] disabilities were not combat-related.

 

--LA Times

How, you might wonder does a mortar attack in Iraq not count as "combat related?" Well, that seems to be the fault of congress, but that's not the problem. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the vet I am IMing with right now, that's really not the point. An injury incurred while in the military, in a situation you wouldn't have been in if you were not in the military, should be taken care of by the military.

Go read the article, get pissed off, write your representatives, senators and president.

Facebook | Twitter | Reddit | Stumble

More evidence was released this week that Barack Obama is truely my president (elect). Following more than a little in the footsteps of FDR, he has released the first of his weekly YouTube addresses. How fitting for the internet generation to get a president (elect) who communicates with us directly, in our native environment. How refreshing to finally have a president (elect) who communicates with us at all. We will be spending brain-cycles hoping that deception and dodging won't come any time soon but, in the mean time, we can just sit back and relax, knowing that our president (elect) is truely our president (elect).

Facebook | Twitter | Reddit | Stumble

The 2008 election takes place on Tuesday, November 4.  Minnesota Statute
204C.04, Employees Time Off to Vote, provides that:

"Every employee who is eligible to vote in an election has the right to
be absent from work for the purpose of voting during the morning of the
day of that election, without penalty or deduction from salary or wages
because of the absence."

Facebook | Twitter | Reddit | Stumble

Unlike the candidates, I'm not going to campaign for anyone on November 4th. Now go out and vote or I'll send this guy to get you.

-- via Gizmodo.

Facebook | Twitter | Reddit | Stumble

While listening to NPR this morning, I heard a strange and surprising thing. Rush Limbaugh said

"We're going to have to drag Sen. McCain over the finish line, and then we're going to have to deal with what he does in the Oval Office ourselves,...That's how this is going to have to work. We have to save the country from Obama and then save it and the Republican Party from whoever McCain puts in his Cabinet. We have to do this one step at a time. Do not throw in the towel."

So, basically, what I hear him saying is that it's better to have a bad Republican in office than a good Democrat; that whatever damage McCain does to the country and the Party is a problem to deal with later because having a Democrat in office is worse.

I'm sure that Rush isn't the only pundit saying this type of thing and he's certainly not the only Republican who's not too happy about a McCain presidency. Some Republicans have turned to voting for McCain in hopes that he'll die and Palin will become president, which is a scary thought to me, and some have turned to voting for Obama or, even worse, not voting at all. This concept of voting for the Republican because he's a Republican baffles me.

Maybe it's because I'm from Minnesota and, while, since Franklin Rosevelt, we have voted for the Republican only when Richard Nixon was on the ticket, we have a very independed spirit as far as elections go. Maybe it's because I'm a pretty independent thinker in general. Whatever the cause, my belief is that I should vote for the candidate I believe will do the best job of representing my beliefs no matter what their party affiliation. What Limbaugh and others (I assume) are saying is just like saying that a heart surgeon who failed out of Harvard is better than one who graduated with a 4.0 from the University of Illinois.

I know that "logic" and comparisons to other, easier-to-relate-to situations rarely convince people with outlandish notions to rethink their positions, but that's the way I think. I also find that most people understand things when explained this way. I know that nobody of any significance reads my blog, but I hope that other people think about what Rush says from a position where they can't see the bottom of his boots.

-Illustration by Rex Lameray, published by Belltown Messenger on flickr.

Facebook | Twitter | Reddit | Stumble