The Most Unusual Argument

This came across my FaceBook news feed. I watched and just thought, "Wow." Rep. Hale takes something that is universally accepted as illegal, drunk driving, and tries to rationalize that it should be legal out of economic necessity. 

His argument is based on that in small towns, there are no buses, taxis or other means of transportation besides their own vehicles. This leaves few options to the person wanting to go and drink. They must choose between going and drinking, but then driving home or not going at all. That part about "not going at all" puts at risk revenue that these drinking establishments could be making. These thoughts lead Rep. Hale to state that in order for these drinking establishments to stay open, which are the center of these towns, people must be afforded the leeway to drive drunk. It is a truly unique and wild idea to think about. In effect, the lives of people are being put at risk for people to get drunk and "build community." It's not an argument that we hear made every day.

I strongly disagree with the belief of Rep. Hale. There are two kinds of laws, laws that are naturally illegal (rape, murder, robbery) and law that make things illegal because we say that they should be illegal (drinking underage, drugs, etc.). I'd think that driving drunk would fall somewhere between those two because it is needlessly putting lives (or as Hale says, to build community). It is inherent in our society that when people's lives are put at risk like that, there has to be some punishment. If someone kills another person while driving drunk if it were legal to drive after drinking, what would the punishment be? Would it be just like killing someone in a normal car accident? It starts to become more ridiculous as questions like this start to be asked.

Obama on the Peace Prize

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/23/obama_i_will_be_keeping_my_nobel_peace_prize.html

This is one of my favorite things that the President has ever said. Everyone knows that President Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize and there was much publicity on the award. That award has come under criticism because of the US becoming involved in Libya and using our military significantly in three places at the moment. I do not believe that this movement warrants him having to return an award that he never asked for, but instead was given.

As President Obama pointed out, the Nobel committee was aware that he was the leader of the world's strongest military, but at the same was hoping for peace. "I am accustomed to this contradiction of being both a commander-in-chief but also someone who aspires to peace," said our President. I think that this is something worth noting in his argument about returning the award. The President, as the leader of an entire nation, is unable to take a universal pacifist front because that opens our country up to attack. Other candidates for the award were people who did not really have responsibility or a role to fill, but were instead just activists in their countries. They are one dimensional, but Obama is unable to be similar. It was important that Obama point that out while making his case to keep his award. 


Also, as he stated, going into Libya hopes to serve the purpose of allowing the people to live their life freely and without an oppressive government. Freedom is a major part of peace since oppression fosters violence. You wouldn't cry out that rebels trying to overthrow an oppressive leader are acting out of line. So there should not be any criticism placed on a person who decides to subtly support them and their right to hope to be more than a means of one person acquiring more power and wealth.

By Request of Marvin

This week we have featured an alternative side. Many of my other blog entries have focused on Democrats saying dumb things or twisting this irrationally. This time however it is different on two fronts. The first is that this one isn't so much a demonstration of dumb things. Instead it is similar to what we talked about in class today. Also, despite being Fox News, the point is from the Democratic side where the Republics (Sean Hannity) is serving as the ass by making it difficult for the Democratic representative to make his point.

The video is at the bottom of the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/michele-bachmann-anthony-weiner_n_836967.html

The video is entertaining and comical at parts as you watch it, but at the beginning you can already tell how the conversation will go. Similar to Mr. Bashir in class today, Sean Hannity made it difficult for Rep. Weiner to state his point. Instead of waiting for Rep. Weiner to finish his statement and then providing his rebuttal, he takes the immature stance. Every time that Rep. Weiner says something, Sean Hannity instantly interrupted and then began to state in someway how he disagreed or how Weiner was wrong and views contorted.

Then the things got even more bizarre, but more entertaining as the two representatives began to get off topic and instead of talking about the topic at hand, they began to spar over personal issues. While this is entertaining and as the verbal boxing takes places, viewers are able to pick sides the debated becomes more entertaining. That being said, this isn't the good kind of political conversation that helps pass bills and build a nation. For that reason, I think that this is very good entertainment, but a sort of poor political show. A lot of shows that are supposed to be political are not really political, but instead an entertainment circus.

He Looks Like a Car Bomber

When I saw this, I thought, "Yes, exactly what I was looking for." It follows along what I've been blogging about thus far which is mainly how people take standard arguments and then bring in ridiculous examples or reasons to try and get people to side with them. It is usually a Democrat acting silly because it's hard for me to hate on the people I support, its only normal. I know that it is done by the Republican contingent just as much as the Democratic, but by writing about the Democrats, it is my own piece of rhetoric.

Chris Matthews started his argument very well and I was even thinking, "Shit, I don't want this guy to become the next president." From there it kind of got a little ridiculous for me. Matthews took a very good rhetorical argument and then took and extreme view which changed my thoughts to being against him again. By going from a moderate and persuasive argument, Matthews drew on people who are more middle of the road that watch his show. Once that turned and he referenced that Gingrich looked a like a car bomber, I had my reactions. First, Newt Gingrich does not look like a car bomber. He looks like a nice southern pastor or something of the sort. Also, I am not entirely sure what a car bomber looks like so his argument has less value in that regard too. I know what the Unabomber looked like but Newt looks was more stable than the Unabomber looked. He needs to connect his audience to something that we can all recognize and draw a legitimate comparison to. While his statement may infuse people far to the left (certainly a large part of his viewers), it left fault in a sound argument. I like to believe that arguments made are true and possible and based on fact. Arguments based on fact, but with ridiculous statements just doesn't draw me in as much.