Daily Fallacy

Because I have had way too much fun with these, I'm going to limit myself to identifying one fallacy in the story and running with it today.

HOUSTON — Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, facing trial on charges of money laundering in a campaign finance scheme, officially filed Tuesday to run for a 12th term in his suburban Houston district.

The filing was not unexpected.

Republican DeLay, who has denied any wrongdoing and has accused Democrat Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle of conducting a political witch hunt, already has been campaigning against his likely general election opponent, former Democratic U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson. He still must deal with at least two GOP challengers in the March primary.

DeLay filed by petition with the Republican Party of Texas, delivering almost 1,000 signatures collected by volunteers. Filing by petition, instead of paying a filing fee, requires 500 signatures from registered voters in his district.

When DeLay disclosed his plans Tuesday at an appearance before a business group in the Johnson Space Center area of his district, he received a standing ovation from the overflow crowd of some 150 people.

Asked about Lampson's challenge, he replied: "It's not a challenge."

In his address DeLay touted the accomplishments of the most recent congressional session. He didn't mention his legal difficulties until a question-and-answer session afterward, in which he said there was a Democratic strategy to take him down.

"The record of this year is pretty amazing and we've been able to do it despite getting down into the gutter the Democrats have chosen to get into," DeLay said. "They have no agenda. All they have is the politics of personal destruction, and we understand what it is. We stay focused on our job to represent the views and values of our constituents and doing good things for the nation."

Lawyer Michael Fjetland, defeated three times by DeLay, filed last week to enter the GOP primary. Pat Baig, a former teacher and political rookie, has said she'll join them and already has been campaigning.

DeLay, the former House Majority leader who was indicted earlier this year, usually campaigns quietly without much concern for his re-election in a solidly Republican district.

But with his legal troubles prominent, and with national Democrats backing Lampson, DeLay's ordinarily routine re-election has taken on a much higher profile, even drawing Vice President Dick Cheney to headline a recent fund-raiser in Houston.

DeLay's announcement Tuesday came after State District Judge Pat Priest last weekend said he couldn't set additional hearings in the criminal case until after an appeals court ruling, dampening DeLay's hopes of regaining his House leadership post.

DeLay, who has denied wrongdoing, wants to separate a remaining charge and proceed to trial on one count while others are being appealed so he can regain his majority leader job before his GOP colleagues call for new leadership elections.

DeLay was forced to step aside as majority leader in September after he was indicted on state charges of conspiracy to violate Texas election laws. A second grand jury indicted him on charges of conspiracy to launder money and money laundering charges.

Earle alleges DeLay and two co-conspirators funneled $190,000 in corporate contributions through the Texas political committee and an arm of the National Republican Committee to seven GOP state legislative candidates.

Earle contends DeLay and his two associates tried to circumvent Texas' law barring spending corporate money on campaigns except for administrative expenses.

Besides the criminal charges, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a week ago to review the Texas congressional redistricting plan DeLay engineered.

Ok, which one to choose. How about this one?

"The record of this year is pretty amazing and we've been able to do it despite getting down into the gutter the Democrats have chosen to get into," DeLay said. "They have no agenda. All they have is the politics of personal destruction, and we understand what it is. We stay focused on our job to represent the views and values of our constituents and doing good things for the nation."

Creating this syllogism requires a lot of background information. So, instead lets pick points.

1. The Democrats have no agenda


2. The Democrats have an angenda of politics of personal destruction


3. Law enforcement is political


4. Only the Democrats are guilty of law enforcement


5. Tom DeLay is innocent (?)


6. Poltical
   

Other People Getting on the Snoopgate Truck

Brad DeLong has a post today regarding why the NYT failed to report the Snoopgate story. He links to Jonathan Alter.

Btw, everyone should read Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal.

First logical fallacy news story

Why start with a hard one? I went straight to FOXNews.com and picked the first story about Bush.

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday defended the use of a domestic eavesdropping program and called for Democrats to stop their "delaying tactics" and reauthorize the controversial Patriot Act.

In a year-end news conference at the White House, Bush called the leak of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, first reported in The New York Times last Friday, a "shameful act" disclosed in a time of war. The report said Bush had authorized the NSA to conduct surveillance of e-mails and phone calls of some individuals in the United States without court warrants.

"The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," Bush told reporters. "This program has targeted those with known links to Al Qaeda."

The program will continue, Bush said, adding that he has reauthorized it more than 30 times. "And I will continue to do so for so long as our nation faces the continued threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens."

Holy crap this is rich. Ok, lets start easy.

Democrats to stop their "delaying tactics" and reauthorize the controversial Patriot Act.

The syllogism is:

The patriot act has not been reauthorized
Democrats do not approve of the patriot act
Therefore democrats are using delaying tactics to prevent its passage

1. Red Herring: There are enough republicans to pass the law, so the conclusion does not lead logically from the premises.
   
2. Appeal to tradition: Democrats are more likely to vote against the president than Republicans
   
3. Shifting the burden of proof: Prove its not just a tactic to delay and not a fundamental objection

In a year-end news conference at the White House, Bush called the leak of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, first reported in The New York Times last Friday, a "shameful act" disclosed in a time of war.

Lets look at this one:

The (illegal) eavesdropping program is honorable
Someone leaked information about it
Therefore the leak is shameful

1. False premise: The (illegal) eavesdropping program is honorable.
   
2. Invalid Proof: Leaking information on an honorable program is shameful
   
3. Appeal to emotion: "In a time of war" Completely irrelevant to domestic spying

"The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," Bush told reporters. "This program has targeted those with known links to Al Qaeda."

Holy crap. This is so fun.

We are only targeting people with links to Al Queda
We are not targeting other people
We know who is in Al Qaeda

Wow, that is rich. Well, why don't we arrest them if we know who they are? Afraid of stepping on their civil liberties? HA! But wait, here's more

The free discussion of ideas helps the enemy
The US Constitution demands free discussion of ideas
Therefore, the US Constitution helps the enemy

-or- (my personal favorite)

The free discussion of ideas helps the enemy
Radical militant terrorist Muslims are the enemy
Radical militant terrorist Muslims support free discussion of ideas

1. Appeal to Probability: We probably aren't violating people who aren't terrorists, so you are not violated
   
2. False Premise: We are only targeting people with links to Al Qaeda. Right. So we aren't targeting innocent Americans. And we know who these Al Qaeda people are AND we aren't doing anything!
   
3. Negative proof: Proove we aren't targeting only people that are members of Al Qaeda!
   
4. Guilt by association: If we are targeting you, you have links to Al Qaeda
   
5. Post Hoc: If you ever join Al Qaeda, because we were spying on you for so long, we were spying on you because you were in Al Qaeda.
   
6. Special Pleading: Trust us, these indescretions are important because they are a matter of national security
   
7. Poisoning the Well: We are only watching terrorists, so only terrorists will complain that their civil liberties are violated. What were you saying about civil liberties?
   
8. Proof by assertion: We only target the enemy. We do not spy on good Americans

The program will continue, Bush said, adding that he has reauthorized it more than 30 times. "And I will continue to do so for so long as our nation faces the continued threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens."

I'm kinda tired of hitting these. Should I reverse course and hit only the accurate premises?

There is an enemy that wants to kill citizens
We protect citizens
Therefore we must spy on citizens

-or-

I authorized the program to protect citizens from enemies who want to kill citizens
Citizens have not died since I authorized it
The program protects citizens

-or-
??
I secretly authorized the program 30 times
The program must be good?

1. Special pleading: The program is OK because I authorized it 30 times
   
2. Red Herring: Its the program, not the lack of terrorists, that keeps people safe
   
3. Negative proof: Proove the program hasn't saved lives!
   
4. Appeal to emotion: Enemies want to kill American Citizens!
   
5. Appeal to authority: Bush knows what best will protect citizens, therefore since he says its good, its good.
   
6. Appeal to tradition: I authorized this program 30 times
   
7. Post hoc: Enemies have not killed citizens since I authorized this program, so the program protects citizens
   

Wow, this is fun, and easy. Let's play. Are there any Republican apologists out there who would like to debate these points?

Syllogisms and Fallacies

I'm going to start having fun. I'm going to start analyzing the "brick and morter" news agencies false claims by idenfitying their logical fallacies. This is going to be great.

While I get started, here is a (partial) list of the logical fallacies that an argument may contain.

List of fallacies:

• Ad hominem (personal attack) ("John Kerry is a liberal, you can't trust him")
  
• Appeal to (false) authority (Judith Miller knows Saddam has WMD)
  
• Appeal to emotion ("9-11!! 9-11!!")
  
• Appeal to probability (DHS probably won't tap your phone if you are innocent, so you are free from search and seizure")
  
• Appeal to tradition ("We've never let gays in the military, lets keep them out")
  
• Argument from ignorance ("I'm not an expert, but it seems to me..")
  
• Begging the question (Circular) (If Saddam has WMD he is a threat to America therefore America needs to invade Iraq to protect itself)
  
• Suppressed correlative
  
• Equivocation (Two meanings for one word) (The constitution was based on liberal philosophy, so if you are conservative you don't believe in it)
  
• False analogy (The supposed relationship between premises does not exist)
  
• False premise (One premise is incorrect)
  
• Faulty generalization (All liberals believe in raising taxes)
  
• Guilt by association (Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarians are anti-semitic)
  
• Incomplete comparison (The better alternative is military action)
  
• Inconsistent comparison (This liter of gas costs less than that gallon, so this one is cheaper)
  
• Invalid proof (Paradox)
  
• Judgemental language ("If you weren't an idiot, you would see that ...")
  
• Juxtaposition (Irrelevent similarties -- First Hitler took away everyone's guns, so gun control leads to genocide...)
  
• Meaningless statement (Distinction without difference i.e. pornography v. erotica)
  
• Negative proof (Saddam can't proove he destroyed WMD so he must not have destroyed them)
  
• Non sequitur (Saddam hates America, Osama hates America, therefore Saddam and Osama are friends)
  
• Poisoning the well (Ridiculing before statement. If you don't support the president, you are unamerican. Do you support the president?)
  
• Proof by assertion (In Lenin's words, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth" -- Saddam has WMD, Saddam was behind 9-11, We are winning the war on terror")
  
• Post hoc (also called post hoc ergo propter hoc) (Event A occurred before B, so A caused B. I wore my new suit, I won the lottery, my suit won me the lottery)
  
• Red herring (also called irrelevant conclusion) (Saddam killed thousands of Kurds, and wanted nukes therefore he is a threat to America)
  
• Shifting the burden of proof (See negative proof)
  
• Slippery slope ("If we let one gay couple marry, everyone will become gay and get married")
  
• Special pleading (Its ok to violate habias corpus, because its a matter of national security)
  
• Straw man (Liberals want more civil liberties. They don't care that these liberties could cause millions of americans to die from a terrorist attack)
  

Economics papers

I have posted a series of papers I have written on different economic issues on my website. I have posted them to attract comments on the methodologies, etc, from the academic community. I am looking to publish these papers eventually, so I retain full rights to these papers, and any reproduction in part or whole is expressly forbidden. That being said, take a look and see if you have any comments for me.

Note: I am looking for academic comments. Comments from pundits will be discarded. I know this is a pundit forum, but the writings keep it academic.

• Alternatives to privatization for Public Land Management
• The Energy Outlaws: Why the world tolerates resource rich depots
• Who Votes Red: An analysis of factors contributing to voting trends
• Infrastructure and Economic Growth: Neoclassical growth model with consideration for infrastructure

Syllogisms to recap

I realize that many bloggers and blog readers (myself included) have the attention span of tsetse flies. For that reason I have broken down that last post into easily digestible nuggets. For clarification of any of the premises in these arguments, I'm afraid you'll need to read the longer portion of the blog.

For those who are unfamiliar with the concept, a syllogism is the traditional basis of a logical argument. The way to argue against syllogisms is to find the fault in the logic, also known as the "Logical Fallacy." I will remove any syllogism in which someone finds a logical fallacy.

Secret spying is against US law
President Bush authorized secret spying
President Bush violated US law

The president is charged by the US Constitution with enforcing US law
President Bush violated US law
President Bush does not uphold the US Constitution


The Geneva Conventions are part of a treaty
The Bush administration does not to abide by these conventions
The Bush Administration does not abide by treaties

Treaties are viewed as US law by the US Constitution
President Bush does not abide by treaties
President Bush does not enforce US law

The president is charged by the US Constitution with enforcing US law
President Bush does not enforce US law
President Bush does not uphold the US Constitution

When a president does not uphold the US Constitution, they are required to be impeached
President Bush does not uphold the constitution
President Bush is required to be impeached

The US Constitution is the basis of the United States
US patriots support the United States
US patriots support the US Constitution

US patriots support the US Constitution
President Bush does not support the US Constitution
President Bush is not a US Patriot

It is never too late to impeach and remove from office the president and vice president.

On upholding the U.S. Constituion

One blogger has had enough. Bill Clinton lied about his sex life while under oath, an offense, while punishible, did not abdicate his duities as president specifically outlined by the constitution.

While there is much discussion regarding whether or not Bush's policies violate our civil rights, violate the liberties ascribed to american life, or the entirety of the 4th amendment (and the 9th, but who's counting), there is little discussion of President Bush's failure to uphold his constitutionally mandated responsibilities

US CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Regardless whether you are a liberal or a "strict constuctionist" there can be little interpretation of that last line. The president is mandated to see the laws of the United States faithfully executed. There is no exclusion for laws you find inconvienant in times of national crisis. In fact, our forefathers had quite a bit of experience with the necessity for such laws, yet the president upheld his duity.

When you find a law that is inconvienant, one you are supposed to execute, what recourse do you have? Funny you should ask, Article III mentions just such a situation:

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Those guys thought of everything. So, if you are president, you are sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, and in the event you don't like the law, you can take it to the Supreme Court. Wait, there is something else in there as well ...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

Wait, what is that about treaties? You mean that the president cannot rule independantly that a treaty (such as the Geneva Conventions) no longer applies to the United States?

Article VI, Paragraph 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So treaties are treated by the constitution as federal laws. And we already know the president is required to execute federal laws. So the president is required to uphold treaties as well as federal laws. If the president doesn't aggree with the treaty, much the same as a law, he needs to either take his case to the Senate where they can make decisions regarding treaties, or take it to the Supreme Court.

But what about times of national crisis and national security issues, and protecting the US Citizens. Nothing in the constitution gives the president any authority to make special exceptions to his constitutionally designated responsibilities. Nothing gives him the right to selectively violate United States law.

But what if you don't like the Supreme Court and the laws of Congress? Well, it seems that you aren't really a team player, but more of a monarch, which the constitution was designed to prevent. It even put in a clause for just such a person:

Article II, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There you have it. When the President, regardles of why he chooses to violate the laws of the United States, or fails to uphold our enforce treaties (i.e. Geneva) can loose his job just like anyone else who fails to perform their duties. But, the problem is, who is willing to bring a case against him. Why was the congress so motivated to impeach Clinton over a blowjob, but unwilling to do so to Bush who has clearly abdicated his constitutionally mandated duties to uphold the laws of the United States?

Oh, right, partisan politics. Or is it that they are scared of him. He has become too powerful for his opponents, whether they be congress or judicial, they are frightened. Interestingly enough, while it is clear the constitution would allow, nay, require the impeachment of this administration, there is one glitch. The constitution also mentions something else:

Article I, Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Partisanship would overrule should the House ever get over their fear and be able to live up to their constitutionally mandated authority to impeach the president and vice-president. Viva la republicanos.


It is never too late to begin the impeachment and removal from office of the president and vice president.

Back to the blog, pt. 2.

Couldn't take it any longer. Must get back into the fold. Too much is going on, and I've been inspired by the other bloggers. Must make noise.