Teri O'Blog

Big Brass Ones
The Wall Street Journal today, referring to the transfer of sovereignty to the new Iraqi government, said “The latest opinion polls show overwhelming support for the new government.” That’s great news, and I couldn’t be happier and more hopeful about the opportunity for a stable, democracy in the Middle East. I also think that the new Iraqi government will feel free to crack down on insurgents, terrorists and other malcontents in a way that our military, with the carping media and libs whining about everything they do, may have been reluctant to do. Let's face it: there's no ACLU in Iraq, at least not yet.

Still, even as I beamed with pride and hope about the new Iraqi government, what jumped out at me when I read the Wall Street Journal was the item about the opinion polls. Given the still unstable security situation, I hope those polls are done by one of those phone banks in New Delhi, not some poor schmoe walking around with a clipboard. If it’s the latter, those guys have got some big brass ones, IMHO.

Four Hundred Pounds of Rage Living in a Ton of Lies
So sorry I didn't get to address the issue of commenting on Michael Moore's weight. Here's the short-answer: of course, the body is just the house a person lives in, not the person himself, and physical appearance is one of the least important things about a human being. Also, it's important to remember that my comments are exclusively limited to Michael Moore, and are based not on his physical appearance or size, but on the fact that he is an anti-American, serial-lying, cryto-commie sleazebag. I also believe that Michael Moore lies the way he probably eats: constantly, for no reason, and without any guilt. I asked whether listeners agreed, and some came back with a bunch of santimonious, goody-two-shoes baloney about how wrong is was to 'attack' Michael Moore for his obesity. First of all, I don't think pointing it out or asking the question is an 'attack.' The P.C. police have so conditioned us that we are afraid to even ask a question! I also say to those with their Miss America contest castigtation, like you guys almost don't notice!


Please see my post of 5/30/04 for more.

Thanks for listening and for your many interesting comments.
Best,
T

The Five B.S. Detector Questions
I tell my students that the most important thing a person can take from an education is not a
list of facts that anyone can always look up. Nor is it the ability to use language to appear
intelligent, the sort of glib disingenuousness that afflicts many politicians. No, at the end of
the day, it is the ability to think critically that makes an educated person. If a person leaves
college with the ability to analyze information and separate the truth from the ca-ca, he or she
leaves with a priceless tool that no one can ever take away.
To help with that sifting process, I present what I like to call my Five B.S. Detector Questions.
If you apply these questions to any argument, claim or situation presented for your
consideration, you'll save yourself from falling for a lot of worthless sophistry.
1) Who is saying it?
As I write this column, there is an interesting article making its way across the Internet. It is
entitled "Who is smarter?" After summarizing the impressive educational and professional
qualifications of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State
Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom
Ridge and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, the article presents the resumes of
some vocal critics of the Bush Administration. Of course, I'm assuming that you can call the
short phrase "Completed High School" (Julia Roberts, Sean Penn, Mike Farrell, Ed Asner)
"Dropped out of college after one year" (Michael Moore), or "Flunked exam to enter the
University of Dayton"(Martin Sheen) a resume.
When someone tries to persuade you of the merits of a particular position, ask yourself
whether there is any basis for believing that he or she has a clue about the subject.
Sometimes, as my grandmother used to say, empty barrels make the most noise.
In addition, you need to ask yourself if the writer/speaker has an ax to grind. For example,
here is some biographical information about Greg Palast, author of The Best Democracy
Money Can Buy, from Mr. Palast's web site:
Palast traveled the globe as expert investigator of corporate fraud and racketeering. For the
Chugach Natives of Alaska, he unearthed the doctored safety records that proved the Exxon
Valdez disaster was an inevitability, not an accident. In Chicago, he bargained contracts for
the United Steelworkers Union in Chicago, in Peru he helped found a consumer rights
organization. Years ago, he guided the formation of an alliance linking Enron workers in
Brazil and India. In 1988, Palast directed the government’s investigation of a US nuclear
plant builder in which the jury awarded the largest racketeering penalty in US history.
Clearly, Mr. Palast has a point of view, in his case a pro-labor, anti-corporate orientation. Mr.
Palast calls himself a 'journalist,' but of course, like every thinking human being, Mr. Palast
is not 'objective,' and that's an important fact to remember when you read his writing. I don't
mean to pick on Mr. Palast. This point applies to every author or speaker. Objectivity is a
myth as long as human beings are conveying information.
2) What are they saying?
I mean SPECIFICALLY. Since I've been a radio talk show host, I've discovered that it's
important to choose my words carefully and to say what I really mean. I sometimes fall short,
of course, and there are many times when I retrospect I realize I could have said something
in a much better way. Sometimes, though, it's not about what I say. It's about what people
hear. When someone is trying to put something over on you, they usually hope that you will
hear things that aren’t really there.
Here are some examples of the typical sophistry.
a) COINCIDENCE MORPHS INTO CAUSATION—equating two events that happen at the
same time and assuming one causes the other, but coincidence is not causation. If I wear
my favorite blue shirt on Monday and it rains, but not on Tuesday, when it doesn't rain, I can't
reasonably conclude that wearing my blue shirt causes it to rain, UNLESS I believe that as
an article of faith. Since socialism is a secular religion, with a utopian vision cherished by all
true believers, that's the kind of argument socialists make, although they don't make it easy
to discover. One of the most common ways to use this trick is by using statistics. If women
constitute 50% of the population, but only 25% of physicians, why is this so? Why aren't 50%
of the doctors women? If you are predisposed by your utopian vision of how society 'should'
be, it will 'obvious' to you that the reason is the evil, sexist patriarchal society discriminates
against women. Those who believe that we live in a sexist (racist, homophobic,
corporate-controlled—you know the litany of the Left) society might have a tough time
explaining the following fact that USA Today reported back on April 16, 1992: American men
are struck by lightening six times more often than American women. Or maybe they'd just
say it serves them right.
b) UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITY-they insert a lot of facts that may be related, but are
collateral to the actual point, but they still confuse the issue. It's a disguised way of changing
the subject. If I ask you what time it is, you don't need to launch into an exhaustive
discussion of theories about time and space, an explanation of how to make a watch or
where to purchase the best watch for the best price, though arguably all of those things are
related to my question. For centuries, students have tried to use this 'baffle 'em with b.s.'
strategy, filling several blue books to answer simple questions that could be answered in a
sentence or two by someone who really knew the answer.
c) OMISSION OF and/or GLOSSING OVER IMPORTANT DETAILS—For example, in Michael
Moore's book, Stupid White Men blah blah blah (nice title—isn't it?) in discussing the 2000
election and the fact that many blacks were wrongfully scrubbed from the roles for being
felons (when they weren't), he tells the story of Linda Howell, a county supervisor who was
mistakenly sent a notice advising her that she was a felon and could not vote. He states
"She and other local election officials tried to get the state to rectify the problem, but their
pleas fell on deaf ears." That's the extent of his explanation of this crucial piece of evidence
for his point. Now, what in the hell does 'her pleas fell on deaf ears' mean? Some specific
questions occur to me, such as
*When she got the notice, how many days were left before the election?
*What specific steps did she take to get the problem corrected? Did she send a certified
letter? Go to the Secretary of State's office and demand correction? What? He doesn't say.
Why not? Perhaps because she didn't do a whole lot and that's why she lost her right to vote,
if in fact she did.
*That's the next question—Did she in fact lose her right to vote? The story is incomplete,
unconfirmed and unexplained. Still, it is used as an essential piece of evidence supporting
Mr. Moore's that blacks were unfairly denied the right to vote.
3) Where are they saying it?
When evaluating the merits of supposedly scientific information, we know that to be
considered credible, a study must be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The reason is
obvious. If a molecular biologist purports to have made a dramatic discovery, the only group
of people with the background to evaluate the merits of that claim are other molecular
biologists. Herein lies the reason that we see so much junk science in popular magazines
in publications. The editors and writers of most of these periodicals couldn't pass statistics
at gunpoint and have very little if any background in science. Similarly, newspapers and
public affairs magazines usually have an editorial slant. If you read an article in the National
Review, you know that you are probably reading something written from a conservative point
of view, something that you'd never see published in The Nation.
4) How do they know?
Statistical 'evidence?' (see 2 (a) above) Because 'everybody knows?' (true for everybody who
shares the speaker's vision of reality, as in 'everybody knows' that the government covered
up the crash of an alien spaceship in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, or that Jeb Bush and
Katherine Harris rigged the 2000 election by keeping blacks from voting) Critical exhaustive
scientifically-valid research? (rare, but it happens)
5) What are they leaving out?
See 2 © above regarding omission of details. Also ask yourself whether the speaker is
leaving out anything about his own particular background or point of view that might change
your evaluation of the merits of what he is saying.