Palin's Time as Alaska Commander in Chief Trumps Time as Actual Commander in Chief?

You just cannot ask for a more. Regulars here will know of my love of fallacies - or rather, my love of pointing them out - and with Sarah Palin at the top of the news, I get to talk about them every day if I want to. In fact, I could start a new blog dedicated to Sarah Palin fallacies. hmmm.... [brackets enclose my comments]

 PHOTO: Credit Balloon Juice

Speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference this week, Palin responded to the news of Obama's proposed nuclear arms reduction treaty as a schoolyard fight, saying his agreement was like two kids getting ready to fight and one saying:

"Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me."

Going on to deride Obama's vast experience as a community organizer [compared to her vast experience as a monitor of Putin's flight path], she goes on to say that:

"No administration in America's history would, I think [she shouldn't, really, or she might remember Ronald Reagan and his life-long dream], ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today."

Asked to respond to her comments, and obviously frustrated to have her remarks given that level of importance, Obama replied in as refreshingly an honest manner as we have seen. My trolls might need a review of the definitions of satire and fallacy, to appreciate the following.

Sadly No writes today of the exchange (via media of course) between President Obama and half-term Governor Palin regarding the recently proposed nuclear arms reduction treaty:

"Obama makes the common fallacious appeal to authority here, while throwing in some ad hominem and the appeal to ridicule:

“I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues,” Obama said in an interview with ABC News."

Hearing from the other side of the aisle, Confederate Yankee, whose blog banner reads "Because liberalism is a persistant vegetative state," we get the insightful comment:

"Palin’s view of nuclear weapons was shaped by her stint as the commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard, our first line of defense against Soviet nuclear weapons. Obama has held his same views since he was a stoner college student and has showed no signs of maturing."

Sadly No continues his commentary, responding to Confederate by saying:

"Amen, Br’er Owens [Confederate Yankee]. I’ve always said that when it comes to knowing nukes, two-and-a-half years as commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard trumps one-year-and-change as commander in chief of an actual nuclear arsenal. Because 1) it’s longer and 2) don’t bogart that joint, fella!"

UPDATE: While Bob Owens is busy composing his ode to Sarah Palin’s stalwart defense of Cochinchina in the face of Red Tonkinese aggression, not to mention her leadership role in mediating talks with the Ottomans, we pause to alert you that our uppity POTUS has ’sassed’ the esteemed former part-time Alaska governor."

I would expect that people without much education would lack a basic understanding of logic, reasoning, and fallacies, but mainstream media? I understand bloggers commenting on what Sarah Palin says. I understand Fox News and other right-wing commentators reporting on the conference and her remarks. What I don't understand, is to give important to Palin's remarks about Obama's actions and to ask him, in an on-air interview, to respond. The only purpose served by such a question is to titillate the viewers and, quite frankly, to generate the level of buzz generated by blogs such as this.

As linked on Sadly's blog, The Nizkor Project contains an in-depth review of fallacies as well as a guide to arguments and logic that is well-written and easily understood. As the authors say, "In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is." If you do not (a premise, maybe two, and a conclusion), then I suggest you follow the link and review. Our "news" is full of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Everyone (including me) has an agenda. In order to wade through the overwhelming amount of information available to us, the commentary thrown at us from all sides (and yes, there are far more than two sides), we all need to hone our critical thinking skills and learn how to listen and to analyze for ourselves what we hear.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

A Short Lesson in Satire. Limbaugh? Not.

satire [sat-ahy ur]
-noun

1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

 (definition courtesy of  dictionary.com)


Satire is a device used to point out--by use of sarcasm, ridicule, derision, or other means--the shortcomings of individuals, groups, or governments. It is intended, often with anger added to humor, to reflect a point of view that is in opposition to what is actually portrayed. It is often uncomfortable, and frequently objected to when it hits too close to home. People often laugh at parody until the subject of that parody is something they have experienced, then they begin to object. Although satire is meant to make the viewer/reader laugh and be seen as funny, it is a reflection of the anger or disapproval felt by the creator of the piece. The key word here, is humor.

Given this short lesson in satire, let's review. Rahm Emmanuel referred to a non-specific "they" as "effing retards" behind closed doors. Sarah Palin immediately claimed that he was insensitive and should be fired. Along comes (Republican) Rush Limbaugh who said, over the public airwaves:

"Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards."

When asked, repeatedly, why she did not object to Rush Limbaugh's use of the word retard, Sarah Palin states that his use is "political satire" and therefore okay. Satire? I guess some could try to stretch the above incident to fit within the definition of satire. Rush Limbaugh is definitely a very angry man,and enjoys holding up for ridicule anyone in the Democratic Party--as well as women and minorities. He frames his radio show around politics and politicians, so attacks against them could, I suppose, be considered political satire, but where's the humor? Okay, he is laughable, but he's not trying to be funny, and that's the key. He is deadly serious and his attacks are serious. Any humor that arises out of what he says is unintended. So, some may see political satire, but I see it differently.

I believe that Rush Limbaugh's use of the word retard was a slap at Sarah Palin, and his dig at our "politically correct society" was perhaps a reminder to her that she was overreacting (in this and other situations) and should dial it back if she wanted his support. She has shown over time that she takes offense easily and does not forgive, two qualities that will not serve her well if she pursues a career either in politics or the media. It is clear that her cheerleaders at Fox, and now Rush, are having second thoughts about her ability to learn from her missteps (or even acknowledge that she has made any). It will be fascinating to see how this unfolds over the next weeks and months.