Scary thing about US Presidential Nominees

The United States, spends roughly 560 billion dollars a year and has the most powerful military in the world. Its GDP at approximately 16 trillion dollars is more than twice that of China's GDP. For most of the world, the U.S.A. is where the power rests. The president, the comander-in-chief of the nuclear codes.

That is an incredible amount of power given to such a few people. Demographically, the world population —the total number of humans currently living— was estimated at 7.4 billion this year while the US population at 324 million represents slightly over 4% of the globe.

Currently there is much news and disbelief about the results of the 2016 Presidential election. It's true so much uncertainty about the results are cause for anxiety, but for me, living outside the US, what is even more unnerving is that so few people were involved in the election process especially given their dominace of the world.

Results of this election, as indicated in the chart above, roughly even split the vote between the major candidates of Trump and Clinton, but what is also so disheartening is the fact that 40% of eligible voters did not vote.  And of that 40, there were 72 million Americans (83%)  who did not even take the time to register to vote.

Now to make this last election process even more pitiful is that half of the primary voters chose candidates other than Trump or Clinton. Just 14% of eligible adults voted for either Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton as the Rep/Dem presidential candidate giving the american public no one from which to choose. So even if the entire nation had voted in the election, the primary candidates were still only put forth by a mere 9% of the nation or 32 million people to control the world.

Who do you vote for when there is rubbish under both bushes?

Does any one know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours?

According to a legend of the Chippewa tribe, the lake they once called Gitche Gumee "never gives up her dead." Thus began the Newsweek article in the issue of November 24, 1975.

On November 10, 1975, an ore carrier —the Edmund Fitzgerald— sank in Lake Superior during a November storm, taking the lives of all 29 crew members. Later that month, Gordon Lightfoot, inspired by that article in Newsweek Magazine, took the dry journalistic material and wrote what is probably his most famous and haunting song: 

Wreck Of The Edmund Fitzgerald.

The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down

of the big lake they called "Gitche Gumee."

The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead

when the skies of November turn gloomy.

With a load of iron ore twenty-six thousand tons more

than the Edmund Fitzgerald weighed empty,

that good ship and true was a bone to be chewed

when the "Gales of November" came early. 

The ship was the pride of the American side

coming back from some mill in Wisconsin.

As the big freighters go, it was bigger than most

with a crew and good captain well seasoned,

concluding some terms with a couple of steel firms

when they left fully loaded for Cleveland.

And later that night when the ship's bell rang,

could it be the north wind they'd been feelin'?

The wind in the wires made a tattle-tale sound

and a wave broke over the railing.

And ev'ry man knew, as the captain did too

'twas the witch of November come stealin'.

The dawn came late and the breakfast had to wait

when the Gales of November came slashin'.

When afternoon came it was freezin' rain

in the face of a hurricane west wind.

When suppertime came the old cook came on deck

Sayin' "Fellas, it's too rough t'feed ya."

At seven P.M. a main hatchway caved in; he said,

"Fellas, it's bin good t'know ya!"

The captain wired in he had water comin' in

and the good ship and crew was in peril.

And later that night when 'is lights went outta sight

came the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

Does any one know where the love of God goes

when the waves turn the minutes to hours?

The searchers all say they'd have made Whitefish Bay

if they'd put fifteen more miles behind 'er.

They might have split up or they might have capsized;

they may have broke deep and took water.

And all that remains is the faces and the names

of the wives and the sons and the daughters.

Lake Huron rolls, Superior sings

in the rooms of her ice-water mansion.

Old Michigan steams like a young man's dreams;

the islands and bays are for sportsmen.

And farther below Lake Ontario

takes in what Lake Erie can send her,

And the iron boats go as the mariners all know

with the Gales of November remembered.

In a musty old hall in Detroit they prayed,

in the "Maritime Sailors' Cathedral."

The church bell chimed 'til it rang twenty-nine times

for each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald.

The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down

of the big lake they call "Gitche Gumee."

"Superior," they said, "never gives up her dead

when the gales of November come early!"

Below is a copy of the article.

Arguments and Fallacy Observations

This past year has been full of political arguments on both sides of the 49th, but none so savage as that which is taking place for the US Presidency. It brought to mind an article I read by Lora Wegman. It was primarily intended for written communications but I have found it to be very useful as well when comparing these debating combatants. I hope you recognise some of the characteristics.

The key to writing a strong argument is logic; however, even writers who typically have sound logic can fall into illogical conclusions when they are passionate about a topic and use unsound arguments—typically referred to as fallacies.

Here are a few tips for identifying the most common fallacies in writing and how to avoid them.

Overgeneralisations

This fallacy, also called a “hasty generalisation,” happens when the writer draws a conclusion about a group of people based on insufficient data. Often, these assumptions come from stereotypes and implicit biases, so these can sometimes be the trickiest fallacies to detect in your own writing. Perhaps you assume, for instance, that all members of a particular political party have the same stance on the death penalty, or you believe that all people who attend a certain school are wealthy. Basing an argument on unproven assumptions will ultimately make your position weaker and therefore easier to attack. As you’re reviewing and come across an assumption, ask yourself, “Do I really know that this is true?”

Straw Man

A straw man argument oversimplifies an opponent’s position and then attacks it. This is often a big one for politicians, who might portray larger-picture views instead of nuance. For example, imagine that you are assigned to write an essay opposing school uniforms. If you state, “Requiring students to wear uniforms means they will lose all sense of individuality,” then you may be setting up a straw man argument. Instead of arguing for why students should be able to wear their own outfits, you instead take the argument to a simpler and perhaps more emotional conclusion, and then argue against that broader implication. When you’re listening to politicians, as yourself whether their argument is against what their opponents are actually suggesting, or have they thrown a straw man into the ring by misrepresenting their opponents’ position as something more extreme?

Ad Hominem

In ad hominem attacks, a position is attacked not through reasoning related to the argument itself, but instead by attacking the opponent’s personal character. For example, if Crookedhillary says we should have chocolate cake for dinner, and Littlefingers responds by saying that Crookedhillary is an idiot, he’s using an ad hominem attack—addressing only Crookedhillary’s character—and not making a logical argument about why chocolate cake for dinner is bad.Closely related to the ad hominem attack is the tu quoque fallacy: This is when, instead of opposing an argument or a criticism, the speaker or writer responds by turning it back on the accuser. It’s essentially an argument that says, “Oh, yeah? What about you?” An example would be crafting an argument against doctors’ anti-smoking messages by pointing out statistics about how many doctors smoke. Those facts would have nothing to do with the anti-smoking argument itself but instead simply attack the behaviour of those on the opposing side.

Post Hoc

A post hoc argument assumes one event caused another, based solely on the order of occurrence. The full Latin phrase—“post hoc, ergo propter hoc”—means “after this, therefore, because of this.” So, to use a historical example that was once believed to be fact: “People who spend time outside at night are more likely to catch malaria, therefore, night air causes malaria.” The fact that things happen in order doesn’t mean that one thing actually caused the next to happen. We now know that malaria is caused by a parasite transmitted by mosquitoes, not by night air.This is somewhat like the “slippery slope” fallacy. In these cases, you’re arguing against something with the assumption that it will lead to another undesirable outcome through a series of incremental steps. But in reality, the events may not actually be related if they do occur, or the first event might happen without the catastrophic result.

Red Herring

A red herring is a classic misdirection. We see this all the time in fiction, from Sherlock Holmes stories to modern-day thrillers. False clues are planted to throw the reader off. Similarly, a red herring fallacy can pop up in your writing when your argument veers into an area only tangentially related to the core topic. This may be purposeful, but it’s also easy to do without intending to. Here’s an example in which President Ronald Reagan used humour and diversion as a red herring in answering a debate question:Reporter: You already are the oldest president in history. ... President Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances?Reagan: Not at all ... and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.So, how do you catch yourself using fallacies? Play devil’s advocate with your own writing. Ask yourself what the logical counter-argument is and whether yours holds up. Then, identify any stereotypes or biases you are inadvertently using to inform your position. This should help you identify holes in your logic and set you up for a stronger result.


Lora Wegman is a contributing writer for Varsity Tutors