GINA COBB

Praising Edison While Banning His Lightbulb -- and Other Dim Ideas

Obama said, "We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook."

And then the government outlawed Edison's great invention, made the Wright brothers' air travel insufferable, filed anti-trust charges against Microsoft and made cars too expensive to drive by prohibiting oil exploration, and right now -- at this very minute -- is desperately trying to regulate the Internet.

(Ann Coulter on Pres. Obama's State of the Union address)

Insight on the State of the Union Address

A Preview of the SOTU: Obama's Five Pillars of Deceit

Everyone should read this.  Quotable quotes:

"Obama is to deficit reduction what Tiger Woods is to monogamy."

"Infrastructure. Now two years removed from the stimulus, we can say with virtual certainty that John Maynard Keynes has lost the argument on how to "stimulate" an economy. Obama just refuses to admit it and now wants to double down on more 'stimulus spending.' Obama earmarked hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure projects in the Stimulus with nothing to show for it. So why does Obama want to repeat the process, now under another name? It is because Obama, like all left-wingers, refuses to admit that their policies have failed. Even when faced with reality, they think that any lack of success is only because of some unforseen pitfall that can be fixed with just a bit more money and/or a few more regulations."

Quote of the Day: Mark Levin on Freedom and Coercion

"When the government substitutes its decisions for  yours, well then it's got endless power, because you make all sorts of decisions every day . . . .  The government is involved in every aspect of it.  And you know what?  They want to be involved in more.  It can never end.  Once you are ummoored from the Constitution -- that is, once you are unmoored from the law that limits coercion -- then the law becomes coercion."  (Mark Levin, The Mark Levin Show, January 19, 2011)

Links of the Day

 

HEY, HOW ABOUT THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE ALREADY?

~ What Obama Has Said About His Own Birth
Can't seem to get his life story straight.  Seriously.  Read it.

HATE AND HYPOCRISY WATCH

~ White House: We Were Shocked That Tucson Memorial Crowd Was So Raucous Because Our APPLAUSE Signs Were Actually Not THAT Big
"Applause" signs at a memorial.  But of course.

~ Man Shot at Giffords Event Arrested for Death Threat Against Tea Party Member
Leftist shooting victim took innocent tea party member's picture and said, "You're dead." Arrested and will face mental health evaluation

~ We Demand That the GOP Apologize For Horrible Invective They Used, But No, We Will Absolutely Not Correct Our Claims That You're All Murderers; Why Would You Ask?
Is calling people accomplices to murder "incivil"?

~ And The Award For Most Hypocritical "Blood Libel" Critic Goes To ...
Andrew Cohen, who harshly criticized Palin for using the term, has twice used the term himself, including accusing John McCain of "blood libel" for criticizing activist judges

~ The Hard Left in Action: the Ends Justify the Means
"Who cares if it’s intellectually dishonest to attack [Palin] and pin this on her?"'

 KILLING OUR ECONOMY

~ Business as Usual: the Administration's Economic Sabotage of the Private Sector Continues Apace
Command, control, destroy

KILLING OUR CULTURE

~ At Public School, Anti-Americanism Hides in Plain Sight
Sad

~ Hey FCC: Approve the Comcast-NBC Merger, Already
Holder merger hostage to force air time set-asides for left-leaning groups?

KILLING THE PENGUINS

~ Tracking Bands Are Harming Penguins
They create so much drag that they increase mortality -- and lead to false claims that "global warming" is killing penguins

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

~ My Husband Brought a Knife to a Political Rally
It's not easy to get help when a family member is mentally ill

HEARTWARMERS

~ Hockey Crowd Rescues Girl, 8, From National Anthem Disaster as Microphone Cuts Out
Awwww

~ A Day in the Future
This may just restore your awe

Sarah Palin Speaks Out in the Aftermath of the Tucson Shootings

She's been a target of the left since she first arrived on the national scene, and this week the howls reached a crescendo with many on the left bizarrely blaming Sarah Palin for the actions of a deranged shooter in Tucson. 

Now it's her turn to be heard.  Sarah Palin speaks out.

A must read.

Or if you'd rather watch it, here it is on video:

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

 

\

 

The Logic of the Left Is About As Good as Jared Loughner's

Have you checked out some of the Tuscon shooter's web postings?

They're filled with logical syllogisms.

The term "logical syllogism" is used in its technical sense here, since Loughner's postings fit the conventional meaning of the term "logic" about as well as an elephant fits into a tutu.

Speaking technically, a "logical syllogism" is a term of art that refers to a reasoning process that might go something like this:

Major premise: All men are mortal..

Minor premise: Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Mr. Loughner seems to have had a brief exposure to syllogisms in one of his community college classes, and like an overexcited novice he went crazy with it.  (Well, yes, literally "crazy" too.)

Here are a few examples of Laughner's "logical" reasoning: 

If I define sleepwalking then sleepwalking is the act or state of walking, eating, or performing other motor acts while asleep, of which one is unaware upon awakening.

I define sleepwalking.

Thus, sleepwalking is the act or state of walking, eating, or performing other motor acts while asleep, of which one is unaware upon awakening.

 ~~~

All humans are in need of sleep.

Jared Loughner is a human.

Hence, Jared Loughner is in need of sleep.

~~~ 

If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.

I define terrorist.

Thus, a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.

~~~

If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem.

You call me a terrorist.

Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist if Ad hominem. 

~~~

If I teach a mentally capable 8 year old for 20 consecutive minutes to replace an alphabet letter with a new letter and pronunciation then the mentally cpaable 8 year old writes and pronounces the new letter and pronounciation that's replacing an alphabet letter in 20 consecutive minutes.

I teach a mentally capable 8 year old for 20 consecutive minutes to replace an alphabet letter with a new letter and pronunciation.

Thus, the mentally 8 year old writes and pronounces the new letter and pronunciation that replaces an alphabet letter in 20 consecutive minutes.

There's a lot more where that came from, and it all makes about as much sense.

One can readily see from even a cursory look at Mr. Loughner's "logical" reasoning that he is several sandwiches short of a picnic basket.

Actually, Mr. Loughner wasn't too far off in the first example above, in which he deduced that as a human he was in need of sleep (not to mention psychiatric meds, apparently.)

However, from there he rapidly descended into circular reasoning and semantics.

One of the problems with his "logic" is that he assumes both a fact and a causative link to another fact, thereby making his conclusion entirely predicatable -- but also entirely unsupported.

He draws false comfort from the notion that he is reasoning "logically," when in fact he is merely jumping to unsupported conclusions.

What does all of this have to do with the logic of the left?

Sadly, the comparison is too easy to make.

Let's take a look at the spoutings of some of the "leading lights" on the left since the Tuscon shootings.

Paul Krugman, New York Times

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.

Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

Mr. Krugman certainly writes better than Mr. Loughner.  But then, that's setting an awfully low bar.  At the core, however, Mr. Krugman's reasoning makes no more sense than the spoutings of the deranged Mr. Loughner.  After all, here's Mr. Krugman's "logical" syllogism:

I have feared violence from right wing extremists for some time.

There has been violence, just as I feared.

Therefore, there has been violence caused by right wing extremists.  

Yep, that's about all there is to Mr. Krugman's "logic."  You could word the core syllogism slightly differently perhaps, but stripped of all the rhetoric the statement that Mr. Krugman has "long feared" violence from the right, that violence has now happened, and that the right must somehow therefore be responsible, is essentially the argument that Mr. Krugman brings to the table.

This is what apparently passes for logical reasoning from a Nobel Prize-winning economist.

If Krugman's reasoning about economics is as "logical" as his political reasoning (sadly, it is), heaven help us.  It might help explain why the economy is in the shape it is today under the management of Krugmans' political allies in the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress of the last several years.

Another leader in what passes for leftist "thought" these days is Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos.  I'm sure you're as eager as I am to take a look at his thoughts on the subject of the Tucson shooting:

Linking to a map of U.S. House districts that Sarah Palin's pac wanted to "target" during the 2010 mid-term elections -- which sadly included crosshairs over Rep. Giffords' district (among others) -- DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas Tweeted, "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin."

But-- of course, Mr. Moulitsas -- your logic is impeccable!  It goes something like this:

Sarah Palin posted a map of U.S House elections that showed crosshairs over Rep. Gifford's district.

Jared Loughner shot Rep. Giffords.

Therefore, Sarah Palin caused Jared Loughner to shoot Rep. Giffords.

Like the "logical" reasoning of the shooter himself, the logic of these lefits (and their many allies) leaves much to be desired.  Messrs. Moultisas and Krugman, in their eagnerness to lash out at those who disagree with them politically, ignore all other causative factors, focusing only on facts that fit, or can be hammered and twisted to fit, their preordained conclusions. 

Both gentlemen ignore, for example, the vast sea of vitriol from the left, including (but not limited to) assassination-related books, movies and art that were centered around liberal fantasies of killing former president George W. Bush; violent art depicting Sarah Palin being smashed in the face, hung in effigy, or otherwise brutalized or killed; the real-life burning down of Sarah Palin's church and numerous threats against her; and much, much more.

They also gloss lightly over the shooter's troubled past and obvoius history of "red flag" behavior that led him to be expelled from community college and rejected by the Army.

How can the left get away with this?  Thanks to left-leaning journalists and broadcasters, leftists have not been called on their illogic or forced to defend their thought processes nearly enough in American politics.  As a result, millions of leftists labor under one logical fallacy after another, like these:

Rent is "too damn high."

If we outlaw high rent, rent will not be too damn high.

Therefore, we should outlaw high rent.

Of course, given the immutable laws of supply and demand, the predictable effect of "outlawing high rent" (i.e., rent control), is housing shortages.

Here's another common misconception of the left:

Unemployment means people don't have jobs.

If the government hires people, they will have jobs.

Therefore, if the government hires people, unemployment will go down.

. . . which is a wonderful theory, but takes no account of the inevitable realities of implementing such a "stimulus" plan, including the predictable problems of cronyism in designing a "stimulus," the waste and fraud that occurs whenever Washington has billions to hand out, and numerous other real-world factors and unintended consequences of attempting to centrally manage any economy.

The illogic that pervades so much of what passes for leftist though today is  almost enough to tempt me into some similar syllogistic reasoning of my own:

If the left routinely engages in illogical, circular reasoning about important matters of public policy, then the country is in serious trouble.

The left routinely engages in illogical, circular reasoning about important matters of public policy.

Therefore -- kill me now.

(Figuratively, of course.)