You heard that right. Despite our decision early in the recession to go with stimulus instead of austerity, the US is going to reduce its debt this year.
This flies in the face of the predictions conservatives made during the 2012 election.
I was told by the conservatives around dinning room tables, on internet forums, and over the airwaves that Obama's re-election was going to lead to increased debt and deficit.
There was no doubt. Obama's policies, in the eyes of conservatives, would lead to nothing but more debt.
I was told he wasn't cutting spending - he was increasing spending. Any claim the President made about cutting spending was trickery according to those with whom I argued.
When I told these conservative I thought they had it wrong, they told me I didn't understand the math. I suggested those conservatives were bending the truth, and they told me the President and the media were bending the truth.
According to the Closure Rule from Pragma-Dialectics rules of critical discussion, "A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it".
The tremendous and undeniable benefits of cooking your own food were on display in Mark Bittman's recent piece on Michael Pollen. But it was Pollen's call to bring back Home Economics Class that prompted me to write today.
I cook. My wife cooks. Sure, we occasionally go out or grab take out, but most nights we spend an hour or so preparing a meal. We enjoy it. We often talk about food and cooking.
But here's what struck me while reading Bittman's piece: My wife and I don't think about cooking as an optional activity. We assume that 4-6 nights of our week will involve cooking. Most of our breakfasts and lunches are made at home.
For us, cooking is an essential skill, and we have trouble understanding why anyone would think otherwise. It is, after all, the ability to prepare you own food.
It's true; we know people that don't cook, but we cannot understand how they live in the world. We are baffled by the economics, the health, and the lifestyle brought about by an inability to cook. In this way, it is not all that different from illiteracy - different, sure - but not as different as I thought before I started writing this.
When I stumbled over that analogy I realized what Pollen's call means. Teaching young people to cook is something society has done for thousands of years. It is considered, historically, one of the most basic of skills. For today's young people, however, for whom only academic skills are evaluated and/or rewarded, where education is about creating a "job-ready" population, cooking as a skill has lost its essential status. The discussions about education have become focused on such a narrow set of skills and learning environments, that we need a progressive 'food thinker' to remind us that grownups should know how to make their own dinner. We should probably be embarrassed. In a Facebook comment about the Bittman piece, I wrote that cooking should be considered an essential part of the most basic set of competencies: Reading, writing, math, exercise, music, creative problem solving, and cooking. Are there any other skills you'd add to that list?
Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee has gotten people even more fired up on the issue of gun regulations with his recent post on the Tea Party Perspective. He opens his piece with these sentences: "Shame on liberals for exploiting tragedy once again in our country and try (sic) to use tragedy as a reason to take our rights away. Liberals are shameful."
Then, two paragraphs later, he writes, "All of these suggestions about the need for gun control are the mindset of sheep. Once the wolf is at the door, you’re helpless. Sure, run and hide from a sociopathic killer. See how far that gets you. You know where that ‘ll get you? 26 dead at Sandy Hook School."
I'm all for public figures speaking their minds on issues like this. The Sheriff is in a unique position of authority on the subject, and his voice ought to be heard.
That said, I didn't even have to use the scroll bar to find the most blatant example of hypocrisy in Sheriff Clarke's post.
He writes "shame on liberals" for using a tragedy to further their cause, and then he turns around and uses that same tragedy as evidence that we should further his cause.
Rarely do I see such a horrible abuse of rhetoric in public discourse. This is one for the books.
If you agree with the Sheriff, I suggest you volunteer to proofread his next rant.
If you disagree with the man, talk slowly as you explain the concept of hypocrisy to him and those who have rallied behind his post.
Once upon a time, I listened to music using compact disks.
I know, right?
When I wanted new music, I would head out to the record store and sort through racks and racks of CDs in jewel cases, sealed shut with that sticky security tape, then wrapped in plastic and clamped into plastic theft-prevention/display racks. It was like the dark ages.
But I loved my CDs. The collection was growing at its fastest rate during those years in which I was sorting out my identity. The collection was one of the first things I composed that said something about who I was.
As an undergrad, my favorite time of day to listen to my CDs was as I cooked and ate dinner.
I had a five-disk carousel CD player. I would load it up and hit "Shuffle All."
I had friends who bemoaned "the end of the album," who worried that shuffle mode and playback programming meant there'd never be another
But I couldn't keep myself from enjoying the five-disk shuffle option my stereo afforded me. I got to pick five favorites. Each new song was a pleasant half-expected surprise. And oh, the suspense at the end of each song as I listened to the spent disk drop, the carousel turn, and the next disk spin into action.
More recently, I've been uploading all my digitized music to a cloud service.
When the whole library finally loaded today, as a celebratory gesture, I created a '5 Disk Playlist.' Just like the old days, I dropped all the tracks of five albums into the list and hit shuffle. I'm listening to the playlist now. I have to wear headphones because my wife and son are sleeping, but other than that, it's a very 1996 listening experience.
Except, I can listen to the list anywhere I go. And I can make another list for every month until I'm 50 years old, and I'll be able to listen to every one of those lists anywhere I can access the internet. Beyond that, I can allow an online service to read the contents of my collection and generate a playlist that combines my music with music suggested by what my collection says about me.
I don't think this kind of change is bad. In fact, I love this kind of change, but I do miss mix tapes, album art, lining up at midnight to buy a new release, the clunks and clicks of record players. There is nothing wrong with technology changing the way we listen, but I would like to go on record saying this: There is also nothing wrong with being reluctant to let go of the quirks that a fading technology imparted on our experience.
I'm working on a paper and a presentation about introducing electronic portfolio software in writing classrooms. E-portfolios have been around for a while, and people a lot smarter than me have demonstrated how effective they are as a learning tool. But it is still difficult to get programs and teachers to adopt the technology.
The project I worked on at school went smoothly. Last quarter nearly 500 students composed electronic portfolios using open source software and online sharing tools. I'm thrilled with the results. Students developed their digital literacy. The reflective portions were displayed in a more authentic reading space than a series of 8" x 10.5" sheets of paper. Teachers delivered the tools to students effectively. Good stuff, sure, but I'm not going to pretend it was easy. There was a ton of trouble shooting. There was a fair amount of resistance from teachers and students alike. The days leading up to the end of the quarter were brutal.
When I took on the e-portfolio project, I hadn't yet considered the long and tortured route of music recording technology as an analogous cultural process. All the lost conventions, anachronistic jargon, obsolete equipment, and the bitter late adopters - it's all familiar.
Tonight I gained access to my music through a new and exciting technology, and what did I do? I tried to recreate the listening experience shaped by the specifications of a stereo component from the mid-1990's.
If politicians can gain by misrepresenting the facts, if people in finance can make millions by omitting key facts about investment opportunities, if manufacturers can dominate a market by hiding forced labor conditions, if these and other examples of evidence abused are true, then why should I focus so closely on the ethical use of evidence in a writing class?
In my writing course this quarter, we are finishing up the unit on argument and evidence. Everyone in the class picked an Oxford style debate to listen to. Now they are writing up a position paper intended to inform a continued user-generated online debate. We discussed the form and function of formal modes of debate. We also read about the etiquette and ethics of argumentation.
So on the eve of an election, I asked them if the rules of argument we've discussed in class are used to guide arguments in high profile settings like presidential campaigns.
I wasn't surprised to hear an overwhelming 'no,' but I was more interested in the answers to the next question: If we don't see quality arguments in high profile settings, then what is the advantage to learning how to produce a quality argument?
My students gave some thoughtful responses, but I'd like to throw this question out there.
For reasons I'd prefer to keep private, I spent the last month disengaged from political discourse. My mental and emotional faculties were needed elsewhere, and I'm pleased I was able to step back from what has always been an addictive interest in political debate.
I do love a good argument. I also love a bad argument. When it comes to politics, there are few things I enjoy more than popping the hood and getting a good look at what makes an argument run.
That's why I jump into discussions with people I disagree with. I think it's important. I'm convinced healthy democracy will wither when we stop listening to the other side.
But I have limits.
Today, two people who I have occasionally engaged in political argument prompted me to doubt my faith in the utility of discourse.
The first person posted an link to a Washington Times piece about a book on tax policy. The book might be interesting, but that is not what got my attention. Citing the Heritage Foundation, the WT author presented the following evidence to argue that lower tax rates on the wealthy are good for the American economy:
1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25
percent, yet the rich (in those days, those earning $50,000 and up) went
from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than
78 percent in 1928.
You read that right. The author used the wealth-friendly tax policy from the 1920s to argue for more wealth-friendly tax policy.
How can I argue with a person who cannot see how stupid that is?
I can't.
The second person who shook my faith in the utility of argument was a Facebooker responding to a question about the new job numbers. The lead off to his argument was "Govt jobs should not count."
On a better day, I might have been able to stomach this, maybe even construct the reasoning that informs such a statement. But then I think about people serving in the military, fire fighters, food inspectors, judges, teachers, transportation safety officials, EMTs, sanitation workers, civic janitorial staff... I could keep going. But with each item on the list, I hear those words echo: " Govt jobs should not count."
How can I argue with someone who would posit that teaching or protecting a community shouldn't be counted as employment?
I can anticipate the response, but no matter how eloquently stated, no response could walk that back.
I can't imagine a way to reasonably converse with a person who would make that statement.
I'm at a bit of a loss. I would like to listen to people who hold political beliefs that are different than my own, but I've become convinced that those people aren't even listening to themselves anymore.
Stephanopoulos acknowledged the studies that Romney has used to argue his plan will increase tax revenue. These are the studies Romney has used to answer critics who say his plan has arithmetic problems.
Stephanopoulos then asked about an important detail from one of those studies. He asked if Romney planned to "eliminate the home mortgage, charity, and state and local tax deductions for everyone earning over $100,000." This was one of the ways the Martin Feldstein study showed a rise in tax revenues.
Romney said he did not plan to eliminate those deductions. Stephanopoulos replied by saying those deductions are an essential part of Feldstein's plan.
To answer these concerns, Romney actually said these words: "Well, [Feldstein's study] doesn’t necessarily show the same growth that we’re
anticipating. And I haven’t seen his precise study."
Wait... what?
Take a moment to think about what Mitt Romney just said to George Stephanopoulos.
The study Romney has been citing as evidence doesn't show the same results he argues will materialize AND he hasn't seen the actual study.
When I read an argument based on ill-fitted evidence that the author
hasn't actually read, I conclude that the argument is garbage. I
challenge that author to provide a better case or change conclusions.
That is the detail voters need to investigate. That is the question that has been left unanswered.
But instead, liberal media outlets have decided to focus on comments Romney made a moment later about the middle income being $200,000/year. The general tenor of these articles has been, "Can you believe how out of touch this rich guy is?"
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Mitt Romney and the media think this is too complex a thread to follow. Romney is hoping he can just let it all slip by, and the media think we'll pay more attention to character attacks.
I want to know where the money that will fund Romney's tax cut will come from. For the time being, I have to reject his plan as garbage because that is exactly what his argument supporting it is.
The US is going to pay 
