Mountain Peaks of debate

There are certain issues that have become untouchable by ordinary logic. These fall under the broad head of what is called 'political correctness'. All that need be done to squelch discussion on any topic is to mention one of these code-words. In print these ciphers can be easily recognized because they are often bolded, capitalized, or italicized. When these key words are given in a sound it is appropriate to wear earmuffs.

Some sounds can still be heard with earmuffs.

When code-words are ignored by either party, which is rare since it is so deeply ingrained in our psyche, then the code can be escalated to another level.

A label.

Labels can define who the offender is without the inconvenience of a presumption of innocence. There is no longer a need to listen once a label has been successfully applied.

These key words start having their effect on us when we are very young, but they don't take full hold until we gain some experience in dealing with them.

Our programming can be reversed, but not without some conscious effort on our part. It takes two things.

Air, and exposure to ordinarily offensive materials (Not pornographic, but something that elicits a bolded response in our minds).

Listen to someone with whom you might presumably disagree, and then instead of cutting them off with a code-word, breath deep.

Take another breath.

Now for an example that could try even the most practiced of this art. The issue is now moot, which is a fantastic reason to entertain another perspective.

Moot arguments carry no inherent risk to the status quo.

In 1895, Utah was being considered for statehood, and delegations gathered to decide upon the drafting of a state constitution. One, unexpected, wedge issue was suffrage for women.

B.H. Roberts had been sent with another to represent Davis County.

When word got back to his party that he had taken the lead in opposing suffrage then the following was sent.

"DEAR SIR:_Our attention has been called to the position you are taking in the Convention, regarding woman suffrage, and we are informed, in fact the Herald says as much, that you are looked upon as a leader of the opposition on the floor of the Convention. This position is not in line with the sentiments of your constituents, and further, in the county convention that nominated you, a resolution was presented and adopted, favoring equal suffrage, and requesting our delegates to work for it. Our campaign, locally and territorially, was conducted with this as an important plank in the platform.In view of these facts, and the further fact that Davis County is so overwhelmingly in favor of an equal suffrage provision in the Constitution, we feel it our duty to ask you to not oppose this suffrage plank. If your convictions will not permit you to vote in favor of it, you might at least, remain inactive in the matter, and thus save our party the humiliation of having their pledges broken."

Roberts was asked to resign if he could not restrain himself. His Co-delegate chose to read the above letter to the entire body. (A little aside: the letter was signed by a man that, later, had Roberts speak at his funeral.)

Now what is interesting about the proceedings is that Roberts was given some time to speak, and after his time was cut short, he negotiated with the body to be allowed the final word.

The delegates opposed to Roberts spoke for an additional two days. On the third day, Roberts was finally given the opportunity to close the debate, knowing full well, that he would be buried under the votes against him for suffrage.

I find Roberts closing remarks to show tremendous courage and his arguments to be logical. I find I can't help but agree with him on some of his points, and yet the argument is moot.

It's clear that Roberts knew what could be done to him by invoking just a few code-words.

"I know, sir, for announcing this doctrine in such cool terms that I shall be anathematized perchance as a tyrant to women, a man unfeeling and tyrannical in his disposition towards the fair sex, but I shall trust to those who know me and my life not to take any serious consideration of that accusation, and I shall try to convince this Convention by an expression of my views on that subject, that I do not believe that leadership, headship, responsibility of precedency, is necessarily accompanied by tyranny and by oppression."

The main part of Roberts remarks took place on April 2, 1895.

Word of the Day: Logomachy

Main Entry: lo·gom·a·chy
Pronunciation: lO-'gä-m&-kE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Etymology: Greek logomachia, from log- + machesthai to fight
1 : a dispute over or about words
2 : a controversy marked by verbiage

This is the type of argument I wish to avoid for a number of reasons.

First, I like to play with words a little, and if I have to be overly concerned that my words will be misinterpreted, then some of my joy leaves me.

Second, I'm more than happy to interpret meaning based upon contextual clues, and purists who insist that a word must mean a certain thing, only complicate the argument for me.

Third, I like to discuss the issues, and words are merely a vehicle to carry the debate forward.

So, if I say I meant something a certain way, don't get too hung up in what you thought I meant.

This blog is not a battle-ground for logomachies.

Now, I never thought I'd ever say that!

Solve Congestion first

The Utah Taxpayer Association has suggested that only "real congestion" should be addressed with dollars, not "pretend congestion". The question I have for those who advocate expanding the roads along Centerville is this. Is congestion a real problem along Main Street? It seems the influx of funds coming from the Legacy Highway fight has turned to a disadvantage for those who want thinking to be tied to spending.

The Utah Taxpayer Association blog elaborates further on this principle, as well as asserting more, in this post. It discusses the flawed thinking that has led the idea of extending TRAX to the airport.

Is Blogging a Perfect Fit?

I've come up with a list of circumstances which might make blogging a good outlet. You might consider becoming a blogger if you are:

A reformed, non-profit, spammer. Do you forward unsolicited email to your family, or friends, because you think it your duty to 'set them straight'? Blogging can save your friendships! All those people who thought you'd become too obnoxious, or annoying, will now love you. How could they feel otherwise, they hardly hear from you anymore. They don't read your blog, and they never read your emails.

Disenfranchised. Vote not counted? Crushed by your city manager? Don't have a voice? Is nobody listening? People who blog can, at least, pretend that they are being heard because, after all, you're on google aren't you? Are you a politician that recently lost an election? Instead of sending emails, and letters to all the people that ruined your life, start blogging. Soon that warm feeling you got when you thought everybody loved you will slowly return.

Unable to make enough time in the day. Blogging will, actually, free up more time in the day. This might be a surprise, until you realize that blogging will save you from having to send that letter to the editor. It will help you to organize your thoughts. In fact, blogging is such a noble enterprise, that you'll feel totally justified saying, "I know I should have patched that hole in my roof, but I was blogging."

Far too important to be blogging. You are, in fact, the perfect candidate to become a blogger, because you have already mastered the thing to which all bloggers aspire--The huge ego. Rant, rave, blast the, so called, establishment. Bring everybody down a notch. Arbitrarily delete comments. Belittle, berate, and people will recognize you for what you are. Best of all, you get to keep your superiority complex.

Another Check and Balance for Diebold

I Just had a thought regarding the accuracy of the vote on Tuesday. Much has been said about whether the vote could actually be hacked, and I want to pile onto that discussion.

What happens if, I, the voter become momentarily, insane, or ill, while voting? Consider the following scenario, and tell me where I'm wrong. What if, in the midst of voting for my candidate I have a stroke, and my left arm goes limp? Since I'm right-handed, I might never know that I just stroked out! Is my vote still good? Now I've, recently, learned that a good way to tell if you are having a stroke is to raise both arms high above the head, speak a sentence out loud, and smile. If you can do those three things, then you're not having a stroke.

This brings us to my proposal for stroke free vote. Let's redesign the voting machines to require the voter to raise both arms, and turn two keys simultaneously, while smiling, and saying the words, "My voice is my password". This should, forever, cure the world of stroke-based voting errors.

Now if we could only come up with a way to check for insanity-based voting.