NASA, Welfare and the Military
I often hear of people decrying the military or NASA. They’re arguements are basically two-fold — “why do we need these things?” and “The goverment money would be better spent on welfare programs to help people!”
I have thought that both of these sentiments must be valid concerns, because I too care about making sure people have jobs and have their other needs met. After some thought and discussion, however, I have come to the conclusion that by providing funding for programs such as NASA and the Military the government and it’s citizens are providing for the welfare of some of the people in Nation. These programs provide jobs.
If there was no military there would be fewer jobs. We’d make fewer war machines, guns, uniforms, and employ fewer soldiers, doctors and mechanics. Our military spends millions of tax payer’s dollars a year, and much of that money goes to people who might not otherwise have a job… or they might have a job, which would push someone else out of the different job that they got. In fact, the military could be looked at as almost essentially a welfare mechanism for the Nation and the world. Jobs are provded, training and other educational opportunities are provided… ROTC can pay for much of the expense of a college education, the G.I. Bill will pay for education… that all counts as military spending and it all helps provide for the betterment of individuals in soceity, which is exactly what any welfare program would do. So, the military provides job, but it provides more than just jobs… security is also provided. With greater security comes more jobs and more pride in our Nation. After looking at the military in this light it seems to me that the military is a great public institution to have (under the control of the citizenry.)
As for NASA, NASA also provides a great number of jobs. It provides high-tech jobs that pay well, which raises the level of income per capita. It also provides demand for things that employ jobs across America and beyond. The things that NASA uses need to be manufactured and that provides jobs, but before manufacturing can begin the materials need to be mined and fabricated. More jobs. NASA and the aerospace industry employ thousands of people. People from manufacturing, mining, refining, and fabrication. The program employs engineers, scientists, technicians, and mechanics. Throughout the process of trying to accomplish the goals that NASA sets for itself new technologies are developed which can be used by private entities to create new products and services which in-turn create even mroe jobs.
So, if you ever wonder why the hell the government is giving money to NASA and the military, and you don’t see the need of going to the moon, mars, or having newer, cooler weapons then think of the programs as if they were programs in FDR’s New Deal. They lift up the Nation through the process of accomplishing their goals… not because of the goals that they accomplish. Or, put another way, it’s their journey that makes us stronger not their destination.
Posted by David under Politics, My Views, Commentary |
So if your argument is “the military is essentially a welfare program as it employs thousands upon thousands of people”, why should the government spend the people’s money in such a way as to produce “war machines and guns”, most of which is of little use to the public at large and some of which the military doesn’t even want (see Osprey, Bradley Fighting Vehicle), instead of programs where the end product produced is of direct use to the people as well?
Comment by Dave — August 22, 2003 @ 11:10 am
You say “most of which is of little use to the public” and then you cite two examples of notorious flops. There are also many examples where the military has had successes as well as failures. I don’t think that having failures makes an institution or a person bad or invalid. If we can agree on that then we can move on to your question/challenge.
I think that our government does spend a lot of money on programs and projects that produce an end-product that is useful. I think that National security is useful. That is what the military provides. In fact, just about every country has a military of some sort, so I think that I should argue the (weaker) NASA point.
You ask why we should spend money on a project where the end product is of direct use to the people. Well, NASA has produced that product. ‘The people’ use satelites regularly these days. That is an end product of part of what NASA does. They serve as satelite installation and repair men. I also think that NASA provides a lot of scientific research that may not be immediately useful to ‘the people’ but will most likely be integrated into society eventually. That requires people to have some ability to delay gratification and have faith that NASA will continue to learn things that will be applicable to everyday life, which is probably why people don’t see the point of the program.
Comment by David — August 22, 2003 @ 1:41 pm
I never said anything bad about NASA. I specifically addressed the military. You completely hand-waved that point aside. The US spends 26 times more on it’s military than the combined budgets allocated by Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, the Sudan and Syria, seven nations identified as most likely military adversaries. The budget is 6x the next highest spender, Russia, which isn’t even an enemy country. The budget increase for FY2003 budget alone was the 6th highest military spending total in the world. NASA’s budget is infinitesimal compared to the military’s. Could not any of that money have gone to projects that directly benefitted the public? I think the military is funded far beyond its need, is full of waste and excess, and diverts resources that would otherwise positively affect our people without facilitating the deaths of others outside our borders.
Comment by Dave — August 23, 2003 @ 12:36 am
Dude, Talking about NASA instead of the military bugged you? Well, accept my apology for that. I make mistakes like you and everyone else in this world.
Now, let me address what you’ve said in a more organized fashion so I don’t mess it up this time. You think that “the military is funded far beyond its need, is full of waste and excess, and diverts resources…”
1. Your assessment of the military’s need is arrogance, because it puts you in this superior position from which you think you can begin to do something that you are not equipped to do. How can you begin to know what would take place in this world if the U.S. military spent only as much as any of the other countries you listed? You can’t. Stating that the U.S. military is spending more than it needs is quite presumptuous — unless you have some vast knowledge of everything military.
2. You say that the military is full of waste. Congratulations, you are correct. As far as I’ve observed in this life — everything is full of waste. I’m a lowly business major and I have yet to hear of an organization that does not generate waste. I kinda like animals too, and I’ve not heard of any that aren’t full of waste. I don’t understand why this is a point that invalidates something’s existence. If it is, you must not feel so great about your own existence, and I hope that is not true, because I am sure that you are an asset to your family, your friends, and our society.
3. The military diverts resources. True again. Everything that uses resources diverts resources from something else, so of course this point is right. What you are trying to do is show that the military is an inferior organization/program. (again with this superiority/inferiority issue) This might be true. It is likely that there exists in someone’s mind an idea for an organization that is better, but this military thing is necessary, and nearly every Nation, city-state, etc. throughout history has felt the need for protection. Why do you say negative things about all these peoples, their governments, and their desire for the best protection available… even if it is “too good”? Why do you feel that all of these other people are so wrong?
I also want to bring up a few other points.
1. You seem to think death is inherently a bad thing. What is that all about? What authority told you that death is such a bad thing? I don’t buy into it at all. Who says that a government does not have the right to kill people? I don’t know of any religion or any government that says that a government never has a right to take someone’s life. If you do – educate me – I love learning new stuff.
2. You don’t like something — you should change it, don’t just complain about it and decry it’s existence.
3. A strong military is a National asset. It is a tool that can be used in diplomacy and when diplomacy fails. It empowers a Nation to have its international interests be much more interesting to other nations. Personally, I am glad that our military is and has been stronger than that of the governments of the Russians or the Chinese. I am also glad that we have a military that spends so much money that people will volunteer to be a part of it to get the benefits that it provides – that way I don’t have to join.
I understand that you are disturbed by the many, many mistakes that our country and our military make, but if you can accept the fact that every nation makes mistakes you can be less disturbed and more proactive about these things that seem wrong to you. Honestly, I am disturbed by the bad stuff that happens too, and I can list half a dozen disgusting things that our military or our servicemen have done, but I am not going to say the entire thing is bad just because individuals have made mistakes.
4. Dave, I really think that you’ve got some anger to work through. I’ve seen so many of your posts and you seem to be a pretty critical, condescending guy. I think that you might be better off if you could work through the anger that is driving you to put down others, argue with their points, and criticize so much of the world. Just realize that we all fall short of your expectations. Once you come to grips with this universal imperfection problem you will be less angry and feel less of a need to criticize so caustically.
Go out, love the world, and make it better.
Shoot… join the military, become a general, and request less money from Congress if it really bothers you that much.
That’s what I am going to try to do.
Comment by David — August 23, 2003 @ 1:53 am
Five things for David:
1) You can’t count.
2) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sight
3) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cite
4) All you’ve done thus far is attack Dave
5) You still haven’t formed a logical, intelligent, and coherent response to Dave’s argument. We’re all waiting.
Comment by Eric — August 23, 2003 @ 3:43 am
Anselor,
You’re comment is an attack to me (saying that I cannot count is an obvious attempt to offend me,) but in it you rebuke me for attacking Dave, which is not “all I’ve done.” I am the one who wrote the post on my personal site. Dave came and attacked — if attacking is what you want to call it.
You noticed that I made a mistake that I did not notice, thank you you for bringing it up. I’ll correct it.
In response to your fifth point — it is quite obvious that you are playing the judge like Dave. I will be much better able to form my response in a way that you two would like if you would show some general guideline for what one of these “logical, intelligent, and coherent response(s)” look like. Obviously, I under the impression that I write logicall, intellegently, and coherently, but you are making yourself out to be an authority on this. So, please, instruct those below you.
Finally, I think you should have enough respect for Dave to allow him to deal with the people he chooses to argue with on his own. Do you not think he can handle it? Coming to bat for him makes it seem like that is a possibility.
Comment by David — August 23, 2003 @ 1:08 pm
I guess I’ll try to address Dave’s original question/point again. I think that it is this — “why should the government spend the people’s money in such a way as to produce “war machines and guns”, most of which is of little use to the public at large and some of which the military doesn’t even want (see Osprey, Bradley Fighting Vehicle), instead of programs where the end product produced is of direct use to the people as well?
I think that the government should spend the people’s money to produce these things because the people have elected representatives that choose to do this. Those representatives continuely find a need for spending billions of dollars on the military and many of them are reelected term after term, which could imply that the majority of the citizens of our Democratic government desire a strong military. So, if the majority rules, and the majority wants a strong military then the government should “spend the people’s money in such a way as to produce ‘war machines and guns’…” because that is what the majority of the people seem to want year after year for the last couple of hundred of years.
Critics, it’s time to weigh in again. Please explain why that is an unsatisfactory answer.
Comment by David — August 23, 2003 @ 1:53 pm
David, when I talk about “you” in my posts, I address your arguments, points you may have made or failed to make, ommisions or faulty logic. At no point do I judge your character, make assumptions about your motivations, psychoanalyze you or attack your personal life. I’d appreciate it if you would do the same for me.
Your arguments, to me, seem to boil down to “authority is good because it is there” and “authority is to be followed because it’s good”, which seems like an awfully circular, uncritical and blind acceptance of the status quo, or at least a tremendously naive act of faith in government.
Comment by Dave — August 25, 2003 @ 3:31 am
1. Your assessment of the military’s need is arrogance
The military itself has repeatedly told Congress it does not need various projects, and Congress still funds them anyways. Like I typed before, read up on the Osprey and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle development stories if you want evidence that the military itself has called for the discontinuation of projects which continue to still be funded against their wishes. This isn’t just my opinion that there is gross misallocation of resources, it’s theirs as well.
2. What authority told you that death is such a bad thing? I don’t buy into it at all.
Is this a joke?
3. I will be much better able to form my response in a way that you two would like if you would show some general guideline for what one of these “logical, intelligent, and coherent response(s)” look like.
I can show you what not to do. Read this, it will show you what is generally considered very bad in logic: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php
So far I’ve counted in your arguments: From Ignorance, Prejudicial Language, Popularity, Attacking the Person, Appeal to Authority (lots of it, too), Slothful Induction, Unrepresentative Sample, Begging the Question, Irrelevant Conclusion, tons of Straw Men, Circular definitions, and Conflicting Conditions. There may be more.
Comment by Dave — August 25, 2003 @ 3:51 am
You need to realize that attacking someone’s arguments can be offensive. The likelihood of a person taking offense is even greater if the person attacking an argument has shown himself to be a name caller, disrespectful, or condescending in some other way. You have done this on Wantingseed to confused posters who happened upon that site. If, however, you were often respectful, humble, and showed concern for helping people grow intellectually than it is far lass likely that people (or I) would take offense when you attack arguments.
You may not write about my character, but I am going to assume that you judge it whether that is a conscious decision to judge it or not. As for not wanting me to write about your character… that seems fine, but I think that character matters a lot. People have often used character judgments to assess the merit of what that person is saying.
I don’t know what it is about making assumptions about your motivations that you do not like. Is it that I am making assumptions in general or is it the fact that I am considering your motivations? Either way, I feel like it is acceptable and necessary for me to do so. First, assumptions are often necessary and are by no means inherently wrong. We have to make them just to being to learn anything. Secondly, your motivations are important, because if you are trying to be offensive than I would delete your comments and if you are just being critical to be critical as an expression of your anger then I should take that into consideration as well.
As for psychoanalyzing, I don’t know enough about that to know if I did that or not. I am definitely not qualified for it – that is for sure.
I don’t know your personal life. I didn’t attack it. Where did that come from?
You say that you don’t attack my personal life, but my blog (B) and the arguments in it (A) that you judge and attack are an extension of my personal thought life (PL) (which – like many other aspects of one’s personal life – is viewable.) So, because both B & A are PL when you attack either A or B you attack my PL. If you have a problem with people attacking other people’s personal lives than you might find it neat to realize that you are doing it too.
My arguments are not about authority at all. I didn’t even bring that up. I am simply trying to end this argument with you. You asked — “why should the government spend the people’s money in such a way as to…” I feel like that is answered most simply by reminding you that the government should do whatever the voters want in this situation, because this is a democracy and those congressmen are voters and an representative extension of the voters in their constituency. Legally, that is why the government should continue to overspend on the military. That is a valid point and an easy “right answer.” If that didn’t answer the question that you were intending to ask then perhaps you should rephrase the question more clearly to fit with your intentions. Also, if it didn’t fit your intention than you might want to realize that ‘should’ could have more than one meaning and render the second sentence of your original argument an amphiboly. My argument was a valid argument against what I chose to interpret as your argument. If you don’t want me to choose what is most convenient for me than don’t allow your sentences to be interpreted in more than one way.
Now that you’ve given me a link to this site full of rules of engagement when arguing. I’d like to point out to you that your initial argument not only had an amphiboly, but also contains an Illicit Major. Although, I guess you could argue that you were merely asking a question, but I am pretty sure that your question was loaded with a counterarguement.
Finally, I have to admit that interacting with you like this is quite a trial for me. You see, it is far easier to question than it is to explain. It is also easier to criticize than it is to be perfect. You are putting yourself in a position where you are challenging me. Meeting this challenge, like any challenge, is difficult and taxing. In one sentence you could presumably set up three different arguments. If I choose to focus on one and actually succeed in arguing it then a foul is called, “Straw Man” is cited, and you feel victorious — I suppose.
Feeling all that, I call into question your motives. I feel like you are arguing with me to enjoy this victorious feeling that you will undoubtedly feel at some point near the end of the argument. I feel like you are arguing with me to gain this sense of victory, to vent anger, and to establish a brief positive emotional stability. This is relevant and deserves to be explored because this is my site and I do not wish to argue with someone who is arguing for the sake of self-interest instead of arguing to come to new realizations or to instruct one of the parties engaged in the argument.
If you do just want to have a victorious feeling then I would be more than happy to play a game of some sort with you or be challenged by you in some other way.
Comment by David — August 25, 2003 @ 1:40 pm
David, the entirety of your above post was just one ad hominem attack. I asked you a question about why you felt the way you did, and asked you to justify your position given some evidence. I’ve posted calmly and even-handedly. Why all the bile?
Comment by Dave — August 25, 2003 @ 1:49 pm
Bile begets bile. How are you back to my site so quickly?
Comment by David — August 25, 2003 @ 1:58 pm
It’s too bad that a reasonably interesting policy question has turned so acidic. I’m going to avoid all that (though I am going to challenge opinions, so if such a challenge, however politely it is worded is indeed offensive, then by all means ban me), and see if I can get in points about the actual topic at hand. I’m losing track of who made what argument, so I’m just going to go after all of them.
What we’re looking at is basically the classic “guns or butter” issue — does the government spend its tax revenue on the military (which basically flows out of the system, as it does not provide capital goods to the public at-large (we’ll get back to that soon)) or on things that can be used directly by the public (the butter, but including infrastructure and a vast array of other things).
Generally, “guns and butter” is not examined as a continuum with the military on one side and welfare on the other — few policy makers would take money from military budgets and deliver it directly to the hands of needy people. Rather, the money would be freed for other government spending. Some of it, but not all (and probably a rather small percentage given political realities), would go to welfare, Medicare, Social Security, etc., but the vast majority would be put back into circulation in the form of increased federal construction programs (think Eisenhower and the interstate highway system) and lower taxes.
Either one, in theory, would stimulate growth in jobs that would absorb the jobs lost in the military sector. Federal infrastructure improvement would directly induce job growth, and while many of the construction jobs are unskilled or, at best, semi-skilled, it must be remembered that a large number of military jobs, particularly those in the combat arms, are considered semi-skilled in that the array of skills taught by the military to “trigger pullers” have little application in the civilian world. Tax breaks, particularly ones that affect corporations, will also, in theory, create jobs, though I am still not convinced that supply side economics is worth the paper it is written on (that is, of course, an argument for another day).
The military, as you said, provides security, and in light of the economic repercussions following September 11th it is obvious that security has at least an indirect influence on economic environment. Unfortunately, the military does very little in providing the general public with goods and services, and at the end of the day money spent on military hardware is essentially poured into a black hole. While it is true that military production provides a great number of important, skilled jobs in research, development and production, it is done at great cost without much secondary benefit.
The reason for this is that, in most cases, engineers designing weapons systems are starting from scratch _each time_ a new project is begun. This is, I believe, at the heart of the waste Dave mentions. Because of the compartmentalized nature of military development and acquisition, very little technology is ever reused and even less makes its way into non-military projects. Much of this, of course, is made necessary by security considerations, but not as much as many would like to think.
National security is, of course, important. One of the reasons that the United States has been such an attractive market for foreign investors is because of the security and stability that it represents. Nobody is arguing that the military should be done away with, or that military budgets should be slashed without concern for its implication on military readiness and capability (I don’t think they are, at least). Rather, the waste is the issue, and I promise you that if you talk in confidence with anyone knowledgeable about the state of affairs with regards to weapons procurement, they will confirm that waste is the #1 enemy they are facing. Much of this waste, in turn, is created by the fact that the military is controlled (and budgeted) by politicians with interests that do not necessarily coincide with the military’s needs. Again, an argument for another day.
NASA, on the other hand, is an excellent example of what you are arguing, David. I think that the argument would have been much stronger had you not connected NASA with the military — they are so much different that any base comparisons are bound to be at least somewhat incorrect. While NASA does face many of the same waste challenges as the military (particularly where sensitive rocket technology is involved) a much larger percentage of NASA’s development budget is unclassified and will, however indirectly, have a positive impact on the civilian sector — how can we forget Tang and Velcro?
Neither of these are quite analogous with FDR’s New Deal, however. As I alluded to before, it more like Eisenhower’s push to create the highway system. While the New Deal is remembered for creating millions of jobs digging holes and then filling them again, real economic stimulus was created by offering federally-backed loans for businesses — a fact often forgotten.
It is also interesting to note that the American people are notoriously wary of spending federal funds for social improvement. They are far more likely to approve of greater military spending than increased welfare spending. Even in the midst of the Great Depression FDR had to fight for the spending programs he proposed, and it wasn’t until World War II, where massive military requirements induced equally massive government spending, that federal spending was sufficient to turn around the slumping economy. But for the third time, that’s a discussion for another day.
Just my $0.02.
Comment by John — August 25, 2003 @ 3:02 pm
Eloquent, as always, John. Good post.
David, I think you have completely missed the point when reading wantingseed. Perhaps I can clear some things up. With the exception of you and perhaps the people that got to it because of Dave’s provocative Matrix post, everyone on wantingseed knows each other. We’re all friends. We enjoy discussion. When we question each other, it’s not an attack, it’s a genuine question in search of genuine answers.
When we meet in person, we’re the same way. It is very important to have your opinions questioned. It forces you to evaluate your beliefs and oftentimes reinforces them. It doesn’t matter if we all agree, what matters is that you’re able to defend your beliefs. If you can not defend what you believe, then why do you believe in it? Is it because you came to the conclusion through your evaluation of the world or is it because you were told to believe this?
By taking offense to a simple question that could, had you confronted it, possibly reinforce your beliefs it says to me that you haven’t really thought it through. You lashed back like a wounded animal instead of meeting the challenge. Are you so insecure in what you believe that you must attack anyone that questions you?
Comment by Eric — August 25, 2003 @ 5:04 pm
Thanks for the post John. Very helpful.
Eric, I may have missed the point of wantingseed, but I don’t think that is completely relevant because I didn’t/don’t want my site to be wantingseed. (Although, it would be sweet if I could do all that .php stuff so I could sort my thoughts out better.)
I would like my site to be for me to write out what I think about things and to just vent about my feelings about issues. I also wanted the site to practice writing.
The problem I have with Dave’s posts are that they seem to me alone to be less of a discussion than what John does and what I would like IF someone chooses to comment and more of just a challenge along the lines of — “oh yeah? prove it.” He has come onto my site and angrily debased some other random person because that person disagreed with the left-leaning views of an article that I posted here. (I posted it here because I was in a hurry, I was not at home, and it was an easy way for it to show up in my e-mail to remind me to read it later. I didn’t think that anyone was reading this at the time.) I erased all those comments and thought that everything was done. When Dave came back again, I remembered that I had banned him; I remembered that he was angry with some stranger when I banned him; and I thought that he was doing a criticism hit-and-run, because he was angry with my views. Obviously my past experience color my interpretation of what he wrote differently than your collective experience of Dave does.
As for the question about whether I was told these things or came to them on my own evaluation… I feel like I came to them on my own evaluation. I think that many of my views are so very much my own that they anger people, and I am kinda tired of that. So, instead of having to fight out my views all the time with angry people I felt like I could express them here at this site that doesn’t even register on Google, and that I haven’t really publicized.
Now, I guess I am the angry person, and that kinda sucks.
To address the insecurity jab — I am somewhat insecure in what I believe. I have very strong convictions, and yet many of the people that I know and love feel that I am wrong. This makes me wonder about my convictions a lot, as you would expect. On the other hand, I seem to have some sort of confidence in my views and beliefs because I continue to hold onto them until I am sufficiently satisfied with the argument people “correcting me,” disagreeing with me, arguing with me, or ridiculing me.
This probably comes from being in many classes where I would often be one of the view people who had correctly perceived a “right” answer. After these occasions the instructors would occasionally lecture us about following popularly held beliefs. So, I bought into that notion that just because someone holds a belief that is different doesn’t necessarily mean I am wrong. So, I am somewhere between being completely secure and having complete self-doubt.
Comment by David — August 25, 2003 @ 5:57 pm
From The Logical Fallacies: How to use this Guide
Using Your Knowledge
In your day-to-day life you will encounter many examples of fallacious reasoning. And it’s fun - and sometimes even useful - to point to an argument and say, “A ha! That argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma.”
It may be fun, but it is not very useful. Nor is it very enlightened.
The names of the fallacies are for identification purposes only. They are not supposed to be flung around like argumentative broadswords. It is not sufficient to state that an opponent has committed such-and-such a fallacy. And it is not very polite.
This Guide is intended to help you in your own thinking, not to help you demolish someone else’s argument. When you are establishing your own ideas and beliefs, evaluate them in the light of the fallacies described here.
When evaluating the ideas and arguments proposed to you by others, keep in mind that you need to prove that the others’ reasoning is fallacious. That is why there is a ‘proof’ section in the description of each fallacy. The ‘proof’ section is intended to give you a mechanism for showing that the reasoning is flawed. Apply the methodology described in the ‘proof’ section to the passage in question. Construct your own argument. Use this argument - not the name of the fallacy - to respond.
(I wish I had read this earlier…)
Comment by David — August 25, 2003 @ 6:04 pm
I forgot to bring up this point again… I feel like I am being judged. I think that is an essential part of why I got so upset, and it is obvious that when I returned with character judgements that Dave was upset. Dave judged my arguments, my points, and my logic. Then he judged the military and congress’ use of money. That offended me.
I, in turn, judged the judgemental part of his character, but I probably did it too broadly… and I probably shouldn’t have done it online at all. These things offended Dave and everyone else. Why did Dave’s comments about the government offend me and why did my comments about Dave offend Eric/Anselor? I am think that might be because of a sense of ownership that we might feel. Kinda like telling certain Bostonites that their Red Sox suck.
Now, I feel like y’all are biased towards Dave because you see the offensive things that I’ve done clear as day, but you overlooked where Dave offended me.
Now that that has been explained… it is quite clear that I need to “have tougher skin,” and that is something that I am working on in counseling. Hopefully, that will work out for me, and I will be more numb to all of this petty, overly nuanced emotional stuff and act more like the rest of the population.
Comment by David — August 25, 2003 @ 6:29 pm
Here’s the deal (as I see it), David…
You yourself are not being judged. We (and I’m going to speak for everyone here, because I’m rather sure on this point) are not that shallow. Your opinions and position statements, however, are being attacked with all the vigor I would expect from educated, informed and opinionated people.
I don’t want to sound uncaring, but you cannot expect to take a position on a political issue and stand unquestioned. Show me an issue with absolute consensus and I’ll show you some beachfront property in Arizona, as it were. That’s the fascinating, wonderful part about politics (and what happened to draw me to it as a course of study) — there is never a shortage of conflicting opinions. However, it does take extremely thick skin and the willingness to defend every single point with rock-solid facts.
This is what Dave is pushing you to do. I promise that if, instead of recoiling as if the attack is directed against you rather than your opinions, you take Dave’s criticism as what it is (a challenge) and defend yourself then your ability to focus arguments will improve.
Dave and people like him are bullshit detectors. They keep you honest and provide and invaluable service, forcing you to form fair and balanced (take that, FOX!) arguments that can withstand criticism. Personally, I find it incredibly worthwhile, and appreciate that despite the fact Dave and I are friends he will call me on a statement if I try to slide it by without any support.
If this isn’t what you want, then I would suggest perhaps removing the comments section of your site. However, I think this would be self-destructive, because at some point you’re going to have to defend your opinions where it counts, and what better place to hone your abilities than here where, ultimately, it matters very little.
I’m up to four cents now. I’ll be watching the mail for a check
Comment by John — August 25, 2003 @ 9:32 pm
I criticize by creation — not by finding fault.
Comment by Samuels Michele — January 20, 2004 @ 9:59 pm