RNC, out of options, sacrificing members to grand jury
The following information can be used as an assessment of "what is the best argument the RNC can put forward to justify their leadership and defense of the president against war crimes."
The results show the President and RNC have no hope of a defense.
We refer to this criteria. Before continuing it would be prudent to review the list so you are somewhat familiar with the basis for discussion.
Introduction
We took various comments from the Raw Story comment feed and deconstructed them. All the assertions below [Assertions 1-6] were taken from a single comment.
The analysis shows that this is the "best" the RNC can put forward to silence the public, and dissuade a credibly inquiry into the RNC and White House conduct.
In short, the RNC leadership demonstrates it has a flawed ideology. At worst, the RNC "best defense" will backfire taking many within the RNC with them. We can only wonder how many within the RNC are going to be offered as sacrificial lambs.
The RNC shows they will do nothing to cooperate with the rule of law unless compelled. It remains to be seen how many RNC members have been sacrificed before the Grand Jury.
And there are more sacrifices on the way.
Discussion of the comments.
Texas Star,
Thank you for your feedback. As a reminder, you are not a spokesman for the RNC.
Thus, there is little merit to what you are saying. Moreover, most if not all of your comments could be applied to the RNC leadership.
It is not appropriate to call people who "disagree with you" liberals. There are some within the RNC and who are right wing conservatives who disagree.
The only way that someone who is a "right wing conservative hawk" can be called [by you] a "liberal" is if they are left of you. Thus, you have admitted that, by calling right wing conservatives hawks "liberals," that they are left of you; and you are right of them: Or a fascist.
As to your specific comments, I shall review them in detail below. If you care to comment or respond that would be appropriate. In your remarks and criticism, please outline the specific success criteria you are using to define and "appropriate response," and detail your standards for evaluating an "appropriate way forward."
By way of full disclosure, here are the criteria I use to evaluate your response; and you are free to use that criteria when evaluating the suitable responses to your statements.
You'll notice that the following assertions are provided without proof, no substantive support, nor is there any probative evidence or caselaw supporting the findings or conclusions. This is generally accepted to mean that the comments are merely opinion and not evidence.
The courts take a dim view on making allegations as if they were facts. In your response, it would be appropriate if you were to provide specific links which support your conclusions. We have nothing before us, thus we reject the following statements as merely hot air and tend to discredit your essential thesis.
That thesis is unclear, unspecific, and uncompelling. Thus, you argument, however well intentioned not only fails, but does not substantially contribute to a credible conclusion or result.
That tends to fall into the bucket of "failing to provide a compelling rallying cry for a vision and call to action." Your statements are very vague, unspecific, and you leave the audience wanting to know more:
On all counts, we are left with nothing but vagueness. Perhaps you have some detailed remarks on a website or some supporting comments you would like to add additional support to your otherwise interesting remarks.
I shall go through your comments in detail.
Shall we being?
I shall outline the general themes and strategies the RNC uses and then outline the detailed problems with each assertion. I shall summarize each section with an outline of what could be included to make the argument stronger, and what specific remedies are needed to gain popular support for your position.
I think the errors are only trivial and could easily be remedied with just a couple of minutes of work.
Vague, sweeping generalizations
Assertion one on the surface is one that invites close inspection. For we tend to know whether to embrace or reject the subsequent assertions based on the initial signals and analysis of the first assertion.
Assertion 1 is problematic in that it suffers from the following flaws:
- Has a sweeping generalization using the word "All of you";
- Tends to identify a class in the audience as "liberal" without specifying the basis for that assertion, nor is there a credible criteria used to assign the label of "liberal" to a specific audience or class of readers;
- The construct, "are lunatics" tends to be unimpressive in that there is little factual or textual reference to support that assertion, which may in fact upon closer examination of other evidence, be proven to be true.
Assertion 1: All of you liberal pussies are lunatics!
At this juncture, we remain unconvinced that the audience is specific, narrowly identified or clear, or that the phase tends to motivate a discussion toward some solutions.
Rather, the comment tends to raise reasonable doubts in the reader's minds as to the mental clarity of those positing the assertion. We shall leave it to the able reader to appropriately compare and contrast the above statements with those criteria one might use to assess the reaonableness of the statements; and then contrast the statements with alternative statements in terms of the following criteria:
- Persuasiveness
- Appeal to logic and reason
- Compelling action
- Credibly of conclusions, outcomes, and plans
At this juncture, given this is the first Assertion, we tend to favor the conclusion that the assertion is without merit.
But there is hope. There are 5 other assertions that could remedy these defects, so we await eagerly the results of the subsequent analysis.
Mocking without specifics
Assertion 2 tends to fail in the objective of recovering from the flaws in assertion 1. Assertion 2 tends to suffer from the same flaws.
IN detail, the following are the problems with assertion 2:
- Oversweeping generalization using "We"
- Implying that a large group that is not defined or specified are engaging in some sort of response "all laugh"
- Incorrectly asserting that the result of this "laughing" is that their "asses fell off" -- that isn't possible. As it would appear you are still sitting down, at your computer, reading this material. We are not given any convincing evidence that your ass has actually fallen off, or that you have lost a necessary body part needed to engage in daily health-related issues.
- The comment is also vague in how it was concluded that the appropriate "target for this discussion or special attention" was, in fact, democrats and liberals.
Assertion 2: "We all laugh our asses off at the democrats and liberals".
All the evidence before us suggests that Assertion 2 is of no better or compelling standing than Assertion 1.
Moreover, Assertion 2 fails as a credible construct to invite support, confidence, or belief.
Rather, the audience, could easily assume the opposite; That non-Democrats are being mocked because of their failed assertions; or that personnel who are the targets of such special attention are given that attention without any credible reason.
This is known before the courts as "harassment."
Comedy without detailed criticisms
We see the momentum. Both Assertion 1 and 2 have failed. Assertion 3 now has a large tilting balance to overcome.
However, assertion 3 now suffers from the same flaws as assertion 1 and 2:
- Uses a very broad statement without specificity, "You all"
- And concludes that the derision is appropriate without any reference to any specific links, comment or compelling evidence.
Assertion 3: "You all are a barrel of laughs".
Thus, it is not compelling to believe that "you all" [as the author puts it] are a credible target or source of amusement or derision.
Rather, a far more compelling conclusion would be that the individual making the remark, without evidence, does so at considerable risk to their personal reputation.
We are left to wonder:
Seeing nothing compelling, we are inclined to embrace the opposite: That it is the author, who without evidence, asks the world to laugh at others.
We can only wonder: What might the author be hoping to distract attention from; what is their motivation; and why go to such lengths to discredit others using such flimsy evidence?
Again, at this juncture, the author has failed to provide any credible evidence that the targeted group deserves special attention. Rather, the contrary conclusion appears to be more appropriate.
In turn, we must realize that we are in assertion 3 of 6; clearly showing no change in pattern. Even if we were not to review the following assertions 4-6, it is more likely than not that the momentum from 1-3 would continue.
Thus, a reasonable person might suggest that the argument has already failed and there is no need to continue the analysis. However, I have great faith in the author, for they are a master at debate. They know they can invite others to believe the opposite.
I believe that is possible that despite the likely flaws in all of the arguments, there is going to be an essential kernel of truth that will tip the balances, discredit all that I have said above, and show that I have foolishly concluded something.
Thus, because there is the slightest possibility that the above analysis might suffer some fatal flaw, I shall trust the author to create some sort of construct which would prove me wrong.
False assumption
One tactic is to start off with a false assumption, and then build on that.
However, in this specific assertion [Assertion 4, incorporated by reference] we find that the author begins with a premise that is not supported.
TO suggest: "If you all are so damn unhappy" implies that there has been some specific measurement or careful textual analysis to conclude that the original target of the derision is "unhappy."
Yet, let us take a step back. Assertion 2 and 3 tend to contradict this conclusion.
Let us review:
Both Assertions 2 and 3 clearly use the word "laugh" and "laughs" implying that the audience [in this case, the writer making assertions 2 and 3] is finding some sort of amusement.
However, assertion 4 then asks us to believe the opposite: That despite the jovial atmosphere we would reasonably conclude would have to exist in assertion 2 and 3, that suddenly despite this frivolity and merry making, suddenly the writer then concludes that the opposite is true.
But we see nothing before us that would explain how the merrymaking environment [premised in assertions 2 and 3] has at the same time transformed into a dark environment as premised in Assertion 4].
We see nothing before us that shows there is a credible transition from happiness to darkness; there is no dawn or dusk; no transition.
Perhaps there is something specific which the writer might point to suggesting that the contradictory conclusions of assertion 2/3 on one hand can at the same time be embraced at the same time as the opposite assertion in assertion 4.
Assertion 4: If you all are so damn unhappy, why don't you go to North Korea or another country that you feel you would be more comfortable in?
In short, assertion 4 suffers from the following flaws:
- It is not consistent with the previous assertions;
- The remark fails to follow from either 2 or 3
- The assertion asserts without evidence that some vague audience is unhappy
- The comment is imprecise
- The comment unreasonably links a vague unsupported premise with a conclusion that does not necessarily solve this problem or any problem
- The assertion incorrectly asserts without evidence that the target of the comment is unhappy or uncomfortable.
At this juncture, it appears the author, not the audience, is the one that is uncomfortable. For someone to make such sweeping statements as their only "method of competition" surely asks us to believe that they are in the last throes, desperate, and without any other credible foundation for their arguments.
Moreover, the argument doesn't credibly argue or justify the conclusion that the audience is unhappy; on the contrary, it is far more likely that at this point of the discussion the audience is happy and quite content.
Rather, the real source of the problem appears to be the author's reaction to the events; and the unfounded conclusion that the "solution to the author's problem" is for the audience to depart.
That is a poor linkage between [a] environmental cues; [b] decision making; and [c] criteria used to choose between alternative options.
Thus, we tend to characterize the above analysis and policy recommendations as flawed. More broadly, we are skeptical that "moving to North Korea" would make the author happy as the author would then find a new target to banish.
Thus, we remain skeptical that the appropriate "remedy" the author posits as a resolution to this matter is either appropriate, well thought out, suitable, or addresses the real issue.
Rather, given the author's response and reaction [by way of assertions 1-4 above], we are more inclined to believe that the author, not the audience, is the one that is not happy. Specifically, the source of the unhappiness appears to be the author's inability to think through something clearly, as evidenced by their poor logic train from some reasonable premises to appropriate options and decisions.
Thus, we are broadly concerned that if this individual is in any close relationship to government power, political decision, or financial matters, that there be an appropriate increase in audit scope to assess the managerial decisions associated with their funding allocations.
SAS99 of the AICPA offers a useful benchmark to increase audit scope. Should the corporation of this individual be identified, we would hope that the auditors with the Securities and Exchange Commission use the above "analysis" as a basis to assess to what extent, if any, the individual is putting corporate funds at risk; or to what extent if any they have some influence on the corporate board decisions.
Moreover, it would be appropriate to review the internal auditing documents and compare the documents to the readily available working papers from previous audits to find out of there are recurring problems. Given the above flawed analysis, it appears the individual has come far in life, but has not had some meaningful training on analysis, budget formulation, or other significant business interests or corporate governance.
Thus, if they are in a position to influence budgeting or policy, we would tend to hold the above analysis as something that is a negative.
Blaming
One sign of a problem is when we react to new information, but fail to demonstrate that we are taking the comments or feedback seriously.
Moreover, the issue here appears to be subtle. Let us recall that the person who is speaking the comments below at assertion 5 is the one who is reacting.
No one is making them say these things. They are freely choosing to react this way.
The following comment suffers from the following flaws:
- It fails to identify a specific party that has been aggrieved;
- The comment implies that some nebulous group would prefer some outcome, yet the group is not identified, nor is there a credible basis to assert that this outcome is actually preferred or is desirable;
- We see nothing before us that the proffered outcome is an improvement or necessarily addressees the causal factors driving this problem;
- The defined problem is vague and poorly articulated;
- Using "we" is vague
- "You morons" could easily apply to the author of the comment, but we shall not conclude that with any certainty as they could be quite intelligent, and clearly not a moron. Moreover, it is likely that the person who is speaking is "not a moron" as they do have a computer. Rather, the issue appears that they are simply using this forum to vent. That is a healthy sign. If we can be here as you stomping ground, we applaud you for choosing that.
- Yes, I do mean, "We" as in the formal sense of "our" and "my collective wisdom" without specifically articulating a larger group.
Assertion 5: We all would love to see you morons go somewhere and quit your bitching about everything!!!!!
Moreover, when we read the comment of "quit your bitching" and "about everything" it would appear as thought the author is the one who shares that prescription.
Surely, if "everything" were actually being "discussed," then we would have above in the comments quite a long statement of grievances. But the list of comments is not long or extensive, but rather limited.
This tends to suggest that the assertion that the comments and remarks above are "about everything" is at best a very broad statement loosely connected with reality. This is known as an over-generalization [as opposed to a simple generalization], lacking specifics and tends to invite rejection.
Shifting
We have arrived at the finally assertion. Notice the following assertion suffers from the following flaws:
- It incorrectly asserts there is a problem by saying, "What's the matter"
- The author then stated a condition that has not been either proven, nor credibly linked with the "proposed problem"
6. What's the matter----no one gave you anything lately?
Conclusion
The above comment is from a troll. This is someone who is from the RNC, is desperate, and someone who has nothing of substance to offer.
Using this checklist, we conclude that the individual is very unsettled, likes to externalize their problems, and is incorrectly asserting that "others" are the problem.
in fact, the real problem is the individual is making comments without qualification and is asking "the vague world" to be responsible for the author's reaction.
It remains a matter of evidence to assess whether the author is in a policy making position or has substantive inputs to the budgeting process.
We would hope that once the auditors identify this individual and the corporation they work for, that appropriate audit scope be adjusted.
Moreover, a website that continues to allow the above comments to be posted without any editing clearly sends a signal to the readers: You are expected to put up with abuse and we are not going to do anything to distance ourselves from these ridiculous comments.
We ask that the reading public appropriate notify the advertisers for the website that continues to house the * these comments and ask them to review the scope of comments and ask that they review whether they wish to continue to advertise on such a public forum.
Perhaps the advertisers like to be associated with this type of "interaction" and this is the "style of customer" they are targeting.
If that is true, do you want to buy products from companies that want you to "put up with" this non-sense?
Recommendations for improvement
Again, we turn to the list of criteria as a guide when making these recommendations.
First, assertions 1-6 suffer from a common theme of "impreciseness" and "generalization without facts." You are encouraged to provide some specific facts to justify your conclusions.
Your conclusion could be true: That the world might be happier living in North Korea away from you. But let us consider the costs associated with such an endeavor: Moving the entire population of Africa overland to the Indian Ocean, then loading them on boats, and moving them from Africa to North Korea.
That would appear to be rather large and complex.
Given we live in a universe that favors "things being done easily, but will try to do what is most ridiculous," perhaps the real solution to this problem would be the following: The author could move to North Korea.
Detailed recommendations for each assertion
Assertion 1: All of you liberal pussies are lunatics!
- Specific the audience
- Define terms
- Cite a specific reason for the conclusion
Assertion 2: We all laugh our asses off at the democrats and liberals.
- Identify the audience with specificity
- Explain the response
- Outline the conditions generating your reaction
- Identify the specific conditions warranting the reaction
- Explain how this reaction will be channeled into a credible plan and outcome
- Define how this plan will credibly achieve more desirable results than what we currently have
Assertion 3: "You all are a barrel of laughs".
- Be specific with what is causing the humor
- Identify the specific basis for the reaction
- Outline your conclusion
- Show how your reaction is generating an improvement or contribution
Assertion 4: If you all are so damn unhappy, why don't you go to North Korea or another country that you feel you would be more comfortable in?
- Explain the contrast between assertion 2/3 and assertion 4; how can the Environment shift from joyfulness to the opposite, unhappiness?
- Identify the reasons for asserting the audience is unhappy
- Provide a credible explanation for why the public should not believe that the assertions you make about others do not apply to yourself
- Outline what the nature of the problem is
- Define the options that could address this issue
- Explain how "North Korea" was identified as the optimal solution from these options
- Please outline the success criteria, relative weighting, or other metrics used to assess the various options
- Outline the various lines of evidence used to assess the merits of each option
- What method was used to assess whether the options solved the problem
- What method is proposed to be used to assess whether the legacy of the proposed solution actually address the real problem
Assertion 5: We all would love to see you morons go somewhere and quit your bitching about everything!!!!!
- Define terms
- Explain why this outcome is desirable
- Please provide a credible explanation as to why "morons" does or does not apply to either the target audience, or author
- Please cite specific evidence of "bitching"
- Please discuss how "problems" to issues can or cannot be solved using other methods of interaction that do not involve expression, communication, venting, disclosure, commentary, logic, reason, or other methods of translating awareness of reality into solutions
- Describe the basis for concluding that the "somewhere" that the "morons" might go is now vague; previously the "correct solution" was proffered to be "North Korea" please explain why this was not included on the list of "somewhere" that the "morons" might go to address, what is apparently the author's difficultly with their own reaction
Assertion 6 What's the matter----no one gave you anything lately?
- Vague statement
- Unsupported assertion that there is a "problem" with the audience
- Provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the "problem" is not with the author and is with some specific audience
- Please outline how it was concluded that "the matter" [that previously caused joyfulness in #2-3, then sadness in #4] is now specific;
- Please explain how the audience reaction [in 2-3, that changes to 4] has shifted from an emotional environment to something involving a transaction "no one gave you anything"
- Please define why "no one gave you anything lately" is an appropriate prescription for the problem
Going forward
If you choose, you may outline your various comments and basis for analysis using a checklist or table. It would be helpful if you made that checklist available for the public and ensure that it is comprehensive.
Your checklist should demonstrate a linkage between the information you are given and the assessments you provide.
A good checklist might outline a method of analyzing the situation, demonstrating how the information is assessed, and then how the incoming information is translated into a credible plan going forward.
Summation
Based on the above analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that your analysis is flawed and needs some attention. If you are in a position of leadership in the RNC, the world should take comfort: The above is the "best" they could come up with.
Choose your sides wisely.
Option A. The tyrants have used flawed analysis.
Option B. Those on the side of the Constitution can from complete sentences.
If you want idiots to run your life, Choose more of what you see above: flawed absurdity.
If you want the world to leave you alone, and create a system that ensures tyranny is checked and has a government based on prudence and sound reasons that respect the rule of law, by all means Choose Option B.
But it is your choice. Either way, you're going to have to work your butt of to preserve what you want.
One side has idiots.
The other side has logic, the rule of law, and sound reasons.
Which do you prefer?
It's that simple, and that difficult. Choose wisely.
You will get what you choose.
Hoc voluerunt!
posted by Constant @ 9:37 AM
<< Home