In an interesting coincidence, on the same day that Joe Wilson shouted out “you lie!” during Obama’s speech I was teaching about persuasive communication in my Critical Inquiry class. According to the text, one should avoid being strident and use a calm and reasonable tone when communicating. While I did present how being confrontational and strident could be used, I emphasized that a critical thinker should also be a civil thinker (and speaker). Apparently Joe Wilson never took this sort of class.
While critical thinking does not (and should not) involve getting rid of emotions, it does require keeping those emotions in control when assessing claims. Critical thinking also involves making a proper assessment of claims before making judgments about such claims. Wilson apparently never learned this (or chose to ignore this). After all, his claim that Obama was lying turns out to be a false claim. Since lying implies a malicious intent, I will not accuse Wilson of lying. Rather, I will say that he had his facts wrong. His anger might have been rather sincere, but this would merely serve to show that a person who cannot control his emotions tends to make rather poor judgments.
In the next section of my class, we will be moving on to talk about fallacies (errors in reasoning) and various rhetorical devices. Not surprisingly, much of the focus of the discussion will be on how emotions can lead people to believe claims that are simply not supported by reasons or adequate evidence. The battle of Obamacare seems to be such a case. After all, it is all too common for people to accept claims about health care reform that are either unsupported or clearly false (like the Death Panel flap).
That people have strong feelings about health care reform is fine. After all, it is a serious issue that touches on the fundamental beliefs of many people. However, the debate (like all debates) is not served by letting emotions run unchecked and by people speaking out before they do even some basic investigation of the facts. After all, the mere fact that something makes a person afraid or angry does not entail that it must be true. In the case of the Obamacare battle, many folks seem to easily fall into those errors by simply assuming that Obama plans to do whatever it is that they fear he will do. Of course, it does not help that folks are being manipulated by interested parties. It also does not help the country to have folks in leadership position (like Wilson) fall victim to these errors and behave in ways that are unacceptable.
Fortunately, there are some folks who are willing to call for a civil discussion of the matter. As always, John McCain has been a leading figure in calling for civility and I hope that his call is heeded.
There are, of course, points in the health care proposals that are problematic and there are reasonable grounds for dispute. However, angry outbursts over claims that are not true (such as the claim that Obama plans to give health care to illegal aliens) create confusion and waste our time.
It is certainly interesting that a significant portion of the attacks on the health care proposals have been based on factual errors (I will restrain myself from calling them lies). If the proposals are as bad as the critics claim, surely they can point to real problems rather than to problems that do not even exist. What is needed is not more rumors of Death Panels or mistaken cries of “you lie.” What is needed is a clear and rational presentation of the possible problems with the health care proposals.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i2.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
No argument. Wilson’s behavior was inexcusable.
Instapundit’s take:
I’m finding it hard to get excited about this. It was a breach of decorum and civility. But someone who says “get in their face” and “punch back twice as hard” has little standing to bring that up. If you want to benefit from traditions of civility, you should respect them, and that has hardly been a hallmark of this administration, which has gone out of its way to try to demonize and shout down opponents.
I agree that mud has been slung on both sides of the isle. My biggest problem with Rep. Wilson’s comment was the timing. He is constitutionally guaranteed the right to voice his opinions. Even if they are incorrect or misled. Although, in defense of his belief that the plan would cover illegals, it is true that the plan does not specifically state that illegal immigrants would be ineligible and it is also true that if an illegal immigrant were to go to the ER they would not be turned away or deported, although that is nothing new. Then again, the plan does not intentionally cover illegal immigrants either. Regardless, the rules of conduct in the house are set for a reason. Imagine being in a meeting at work and calling the CEO a liar in front of the entire company. There would be consequences. There are consequences for everything you do and say. Even free speech has repercussions. My personal opinion is that he should apologize on the house floor to all members of congress and to the president. Some are calling for censure. I am not one of those. A sincere apology is enough. The apology he issued the president last night was anything but sincere. By his own statements, he was told to make the call by Republican party leaders. I do not expect him to apologize for the way he feels, or even for vocalizing those feelings, but the manner in which he conducted himself.
He just said what some of us were thinking.
Like I said, he can say whatever he wants and think whatever he wants, but there are rules of conduct in the house. He violated those rules. Period. Do I think he should resign for it? Absolutely not!!! However, I do believe that since he is a military man, he should understand more than most people the respect he is supposed to have for the commander in chief. Agree with him, disagree with him, it doesn’t matter. Call him a liar….point out any and all discrepancies in his plan and speech….but allow the man to speak before you do. I would have had no issue with Wilson going to the press and saying these things, or even at a town hall or anywhere really, except in the middle of a joint session of congress.
In my view the office needs to be respected even if you don’t happen to respect the person holding it.
“Fortunately, there are some folks who are willing to call for a civil discussion of the matter. As always, John McCain has been a leading figure in calling for civility and I hope that his call is heeded.”
A civil discussion with the Democrats now is them telling us to get out of the way and just shut up. Look at all of the manipulation of polls after the speech. The numbers are everywhere. When a poll says 70% of Americans agree with his healthcare plan you know the fix is in.
Polls are garbage. There are no civil conversations with republicans right now because all they consist of are unfounded and outlandish claims, mixed with hateful name calling and insults. All the while, never letting you get a word in edgewise. Since when did a political discussion or town hall meeting turn in to a “who can talk louder” competition. Just look at the way the disabled woman was treated during the town hall meeting in New Jersey. I’m not exactly sure how to post a video clip, but here is the link.
Maybe I do know how to post it! 🙂
“Since when did a political discussion or town hall meeting turn in to a “who can talk louder” competition.”
Seriously, Amber?
She begins to sound like a democrat sock puppet.
The first clip is a protest,and I am fully aware of the behavior of some protesters. That was not the situation I was referring to. I will admit that the women in the second clip where out of line, and were rightly removed. However, I haven’t seen any of the disruptive people at town hall meetings being removed. A town hall meeting is not a protest, it is an opportunity for citizens to ask questions and make statements to our elected officials. Basic respect is in order. All that aside, I said “there are no civil conversations with republicans” to make the argument that it can be seen that way from both sides. Do I think that some democrats go about this poorly? Yes, of course I do. Respect for our fellow citizens has become nothing more than a memory. And in my own personal experiences, when I argue my point of view, others resort to name calling (socialist, democrat sock puppet) and insults (here’s some more Kool-aid). How is that productive????
Magus71: I sense much hostility toward Code Pink. Don’t like them much. Or am I misreading? Perhaps you respect Code Pink? Agree with their right to protest and scream? Encourage them to do so?Defend their actions?
What are your feelings toward town hallers and Joe Wilson? Same as what you feel toward CP?
You know you’re risking being called a “Republic” 🙂 sock puppet, so be careful with your response.
I WAS REFERRING TO THE WOMAN IN THE VIDEO AS A SOCK PUPPET–NOT AMBER.
Now–my turn to rant.
Well, Code Pink’s entire purpose was to disrupt Patraeus’ Congressional Testimony. I don’t think Wilson went to Obama’s speech intending to do what he did. He has admitted he was wrong. Has Code Pink done this?
The insinuation was that somehow people yelling at town hall meetings is an odd thing, when actually there’s quite a history of outbursts at public political gatherings. And guess what? I’ve never written an entire blog on the more ludicrous moments of Code Pink, because their actions speak for themselves; they’re wrong, just as Wilson’s were. But I’m posting these here because I’m sick and tired of the liberal examination and magnification of dumb stuff like Sarah Palin and Wilson. Really, is that all you have now that Bush isn’t president? We’re at war, remember? Oh but wait, this is the Good War….Where’s Code Pink now? Are they going nuts at Obama speeches? No, because they’re middle-aged women who voted for Obama because they liked the fact that he wears boxers and not briefs.
Yeah, I’m a complete dogmatist. I disagree with the Dems on the economy, religion, abortion, the proper place of the military, and American Exceptionalism. why shouldn’t I be dogmatic?
No, I do not support Code Pink in blocking access to public buildings or in illegally interrupting Congressional hearings– I support the right of the police to bring them to jail in such instances.
Ah, Code Pink. The segment on the Daily Show featuring them was hilarious (yet disturbing). They need lessons in appropriate behavior and critical thinking as well.
“I WAS REFERRING TO THE WOMAN IN THE VIDEO AS A SOCK PUPPET–NOT AMBER.”
mag-Assuming that’s true, I hope this isn’t addressed to me. I didn’t mention any specific “sock puppet”. . .except, possibly, you.
I haven’t seen so many caps on this blog since I started visiting here.
” Now–my turn to rant.” Seems like you started your rant about two lines before it was “your turn”. 🙂
biomass;
Amber accused me of calling her a sock puppet.
“mag-Assuming that’s true, I hope this isn’t addressed to me. I didn’t mention any specific “sock puppet”. . .except, possibly, you.
I haven’t seen so many caps on this blog since I started visiting here.”
biomass, at your age you should know that pandering doesn’t really impress the girls.
“I WAS REFERRING TO THE WOMAN IN THE VIDEO AS A SOCK PUPPET–NOT AMBER.”
I apologize for the misunderstanding! Now, I understand the argument that Code Pink is a bunch of nut bags. Personally, I think their behavior is over the top and inappropriate at pretty much every event they attend. So, we are actually in agreement about something…shocker! As far as whether or not Wilson intended to disrupt the speech??? I don’t know if he did or didn’t. I do know that the other republican members of congress that waved bills and held up signs did have that intent. Not to mention that they were technically “on the clock” so they should be acting like professionals. There were plenty of democratic members of congress that disagreed with the Bush administration in regards to the war, but I don’t recall any of them conducting themselves in such a manner. Sure, they spoke their opinions. Some called for impeachment, some accused the president of being somehow involved with the attack on 9/11, however, they did not yell at him or call him names in the middle of a speech to the nation. I can only imagine what would happen if my husband had called the CEO of his company a liar in front of everyone he works with in a meeting.
“Amber accused me of calling her a sock puppet.”
No rant following—just some observations:
Admit it: The only “apparently” female referents for the pronoun “She” in “She begins to sound like a democrat sock puppet” are ambiguous, at best. The last female reference–assuming “Amber” is female,which would be a very naive assumption, this being the internets and all :)– to appear before your “sock puppet” reference is contained in the post immediately preceding: post, where you say “Seriously, Amber?”
Apparently “Amber” “misunderstood” you, too. With good reason. There was no reason on “Amber’s” part for apology. Or on my part.
Next time, when you stoop to labeling a person, name him/her.
————–
Oh. I almost forgot. On 9/9 8:30 am Archaeology and God/ I responded to you concerning a situation where kernunos had presented a -unsupported-fiction as truth.
magus71:biomass–seriously–stop… please.
biomass2:OK. Maybe. But only for you. 🙂
About 12 mins. later I posted the following to you. First I quoted kernunos.
kernunos:“I will not let you come here and think that you can safely say such crap without recourse.”
biomass2 to magus71:I just found that as part of a kernunos post on Secret School Speech. In light of that statement, what do you think? Should I keep my recent promise [to desist], or should I continue until kernunos supports his claim?
—–
So. Shouldn’t I have the same right that kernunos stongly asserts– to question the source of an opinion or “fact” and expect a response?
“When a poll says 70% of Americans agree with his healthcare plan you know the fix is in.”
If you’re referring to the CNN poll, I believe the number is 67% based on a question about Obama’s health care policy. Does that mean the “fix” may not be in?
It was a question about the president’s policies in general that supposedly got a 70% response.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/09/10/cnns-polling-after-obama-speech-skewed-democratic
That being said,however,if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck it’s probabaly a duck. Even the 67% is one suspicious duck. I notice, however, that you don’t contest CNN’s pre-speech poll which shows 53% with his health care plans. I believe that was enough to win the last election . . .
From another angle, saying the American people (Would that be all of them? a large majority? a bare majority?) are against the plan, or against the public option based on shouted reports from tea parties and radio and tv pundits would, it seems, be even more “ducky”. If it poops like a duck. . .
I’m not a big poll fan. But, from time to time, if they’re done without an agenda, they can be remarkably accurate. I’ll wait until Gallup, Pew, and Rasmussen etc. offer up numbers, then I’ll average them out, and take it all with a grain of salt.
But have the Democrats in Congress acted rudely?
I would like to say that none of them have acted rudely, but that wouldn’t be completely true. Barney Frank comes to mind, and the way he addressed a citizen at his town hall meeting. While I admit that I did have a little chuckle at some of the things he said, it was inappropriate. However, they have been able to practice self control and conduct themselves professionally and respectfully during presidential addresses and the like.
Not as egregious as Joe Wilson, but still fairly rude:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Dems_heckled_Bush_but_Wilson_was_different.html
In 2004, Democrats delivered a “Chorus Of Boos” during Bush’s Bush’s State Of The Union when he called for renewal of the Patriot Act., according to the Washington Times.
In 2005, Dems howled, hissed and shouted “No!” when Bush pushed for Social Security reform in the SOU: “Foreshadowing the contentiousness of the coming debate, Democrats broke decorum and booed twice,” according to the National Journal.
At the time, CNN’s Bill Schneider remarked, “It was unusual. I had never heard it at least at that level before. The Democrats clearly were booing, heckling, saying no when the president talked about the crisis in Social Security.”
That was rather rude on their part. Ah, how quickly folks forget the sins of their past.
VAN JONES, BABY!!!!!!!!!!
Mike said:
“What is needed is a clear and rational presentation of the possible problems with the health care proposals.”
Are you seeing this from the people that propose the government take over healthcare?
Why weren’t there thousands of people marching in the streets every day about the health care in this country if it is such a problem? Turn off the electricity for a week and see what you get. A real problem.
Actually, what the folks who are for it do or do not do is irrelevant to my point. However, I do think that they should also present what they see as the possible problems as well. A rational person considers the possible flaws in his own ideas and seeks assessment from others, knowing that people are all too often enamored of their own ideas.
The fact that people are not marching in the street does not show that there is not a problem. People did not march in the street by the thousands when the economy nose-dived; but it was still a problem. Marching or lack thereof is not a reliable indicator of how serious a problem might be.
This hasbeen a Dem agenda for decades, Mike. verytime they get elected, the try it. Unfortunately for them, they don’t get elected very often.
The amount of time the Dems trying to pass this legislation everytime they gain office, and you’d think people should be marching.
Seems most folks just don’t really want the Fed running the Med.
Our system works and it works better than anyone else’s. Of that, I’m convinced.
And I guess that as long as you don’t interrupt, it’s ok to call an honored speaker a liar, or at least insinuate that he doesn’t see reality clearly at all:
As a matter of fact, I do think it is ok to call an honored speaker a liar or state what you believe. I see no problem with that at all. I believe I said it before, I would have had no problem with Wilson going to the press and saying that Obama was lying. The ONLY reason I have a problem with his behavior is that he was in cession at the time. As I said before, the house has rules set in place to keep it’s chambers from turning in to another version of the British Parliament. I also believe that the behavior of Dems in T.J.’s example were also in violation of the rules.
Amber is right. There are proper channels to express disagreement, and it is important to maintain civility.
Quite so. Wilson has the moral and legal right to question the veracity of the President. But, he also has an obligation to act in accord with good manners.
Interestingly, I once had a very bright student who would turn to other students and say “that is stupid” or “you are stupid” when they would say things that one might regard as stupid. I took him aside after class and said that the professional thing to do is to not call people stupid in class. Rather, he should be critical in a more respectful way. Naturally, he asked me what I said if I thought someone had a stupid view. I informed him that I say “you should reconsider your position.” Naturally, the very next class he turned to the person beside him and said “you should reconsider your position.”
I see, so the presentation is more important than the content. That’s the kind of thinking that got this presidnt elected and I dont apply to it, and if that’s the case than I don’t share everyone’s moral outrage about this.
What if Wilson had stood and yelled: “Barack Obama is the greatest president in American history!”?
Ok-got it: he yelled when he shouldn’t have. I’m no fan of Howard Dean or Tom Cruise but the weird yell from Dean and Cruise’s couch jumping episode are relevant here because they were both used to try to destroy people that some did not like for reasons other than their singular bursts of public emotion. Neither event was worthy of the attention or scorn it brought.
And such is the case with Wilson.
“I see, so the presentation is more important than the content.”
Perhaps you’ve intentionally missed the point of the previous two replies so you could answer a different question.
I believe what they’re saying is that” there’s a time and a place”. Wilson’s mother might jump up and say “Joey, now you know this isn’t the time or the place for such rudeness. Save it for the playground.” Perhaps she taught him that principle— perhaps not.
The floor of the house during a major presidential address can hardly be effectively equated at any level with the campaign trail or Oprah’s couch.
Since we’re not on the floor of the house right now, let me say I don’t care what happens to Joe Wilson’s “reputation.” Never did–because I didn’t even know he existed before this incident, and I doubt too many Americans outside South Carolina did either—and I never will (unless, of course, he’s fool enough to become Sarah Palin’s vice-presidential running mate :)).
Remember this?
The point I and others are making is that “The floor of the house* during a major presidential address. . .” differs mightily from the floor of the House when our legislators are conducting their daily business. I’m certain you’re aware that in regular session, unless a vote is coming up or underway, the place can be pretty empty. It would be interesting to see how many congressmen were actually present during Mr. Stark’s speech.
If Mr. Wilson had chosen to speak in a regular session and had included his accusation as a “revision and extension of remarks”, I imagine his plaintive cry would have died in the lightly-read wilderness of the Congressional Record and Mr. Wilson could have maintained the blissful anonymity he apparently has managed to maintain fairly successfully for the 7+ years he’s been in Congress. Seriously, had any of you out there ever heard of Wilson before this incident–and North Carolinians please don’t raise your hands? And Plame’s husband doesn’t count.
*Oops. I have so little respect for Congress (whichever party is in power) as a functioning institution these days that I sometimes forget to use capitals when required. 🙁
Seems one pound of fleash just aint enough. Huh.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/13/wilson-says-apologize-house-floor-outburst/
Seems one pound of flesh just aint enough. Huh.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/13/wilson-says-apologize-house-floor-outburst/