Class is Back in Session! A Republican State of Mind

Today on my Republican Blog: Class is back in Session! This is just a little something for everyone to think about when deciding who to vote for in this next upcoming election and also a life lesson for anyone who’s never taken a class in political science (you can apply this to any aspect of your life). Congrats to N. Reimer, D.W. Simon and J. Romance for enlightening the masses! The irrational actor model is coming next (thanks Wash U). And don’t forget to give thanks to our Armed Forces on this remembrance of 9/11. Enjoy:

What values, what understanding of political phenomena, and what grasp of public policy alternatives actually influence decision making? How adequate is the machinery available to decision makers? What are the consequences of our public policy decisions? How is power wielded, and how are political conflicts resolved?
To answer these questions we present the following models: (1) the rational actor, (2) the political actor, (3) the organizational actor, (4) the elitist actor, and (5) the idiosyncratic actor. While these models are not mutually exclusive, they emphasize different factors in, and different approaches to, decision making.
In the rational actor model of decision making, decision makers seek to accomplish four tasks: accurately identify the problem that confronts them; take into account the key factors that bear on the problem; critically examine alternative courses of action; and make a choice that will wisely maximize benefits and minimize costs.
In the political actor model, decision making is not essentially rational deliberation. Rather, it is characterized by decision makers involved in a struggle for power, and decisions emerge from that struggle. This kind of decision making necessitates bargaining, accommodation, and consensus, as well as controversy, conflict, bluff, threat, and even deceit. The bottom line is that key decisions are most often the result of bargaining among diverse political interests.
The organizational actor model affirms the organization’s crucial role in decision making, and it stresses the importance of the organization’s vital interests, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and capabilities. It emphasizes how the organization sees problems, obtains information, shapes alternatives, assesses costs and benefits, and makes choices.
The elitist actor model of decision making asserts that very powerful individuals or limited groups of influential people, known as elites, make the really significant decisions in politics, and they do so to protect their own self-interest and power.
Finally, the idiosyncratic actor model of decision making recognizes the role of personality in politics. Factors such as the personal intuition, communication skills, charisma, compassion, demagoguery, ruthlessness, or dogmatism of a leader become important to understanding his or her decisions. A decision maker’s role may be destructive, as in the case of leaders like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Saddam Hussein, or it may be creative, as in the case of Winston Churchill, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr.

In closing, special thanks again to all of our Armed Forces, the RNC, the Missouri Republican Party, the Illinois Republican Party, the College Republican National Committee, the National Black Republican Association, the Wall Street Journal, KSDK Channel 5, KTVI Fox 2 News, my personal assistant /gf #2 Jeanette (partners in crime), Missy (don’t make me take this to twitter-say yes already), Kevin (you’ll get this…share it with your co-workers), Joe Wilson (thank you), and to all of my Republican Blogs and Bloggers (He’s lying), my Libertarian blogs and bloggers (you know he’s lying), my Democrat blogs and bloggers (seriously; you know he’s lying. Stop trying to socialize America), and to all Political blogs and bloggers: Let your voice be heard. GOP in 2012! If you’re not on the right, you’re wrong. Ready by 2011 to win in 2012! And if John doesn’t get his truck back there’s gonna be an issue. Do Remember to follow STL_Politics on Twitter.

Let’s Debate! Barack Obama’s Healthcare Reform debacle aka What happens when you put Democrats in office pt.4 (Attack of the Republican Blogs)

Today on my Republican blog: Let’s Debate! The debacle of Barack Obama’s Healthcare Reform Plan aka what happens when you put democrats in office.

Once again in yet another example of the dems blaming Republicans for everything, Barack Obama has called for an “honest debate” on his train wreck of a healthcare reform plan.

“This is an issue of vital concern to every American, and I’m glad that so many are engaged, but it should also be an honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortion, spread by the very folks who would benefit the most by keeping things exactly how they are,” Obama said in his weekly radio and internet address.

If I’m not mistaken, that sounds to me that anyone who speaks out against his idea of socialized healthcare is being dishonest. Realistically, anyone who’s studied his vague, confusing plan can easily see that there’s a few fundamental problems that exist within it.

Even Obama backtracked this week on his own plan, angering his liberal base by saying that he would be ok with a plan that lacked a government run-health care option. I thought that was the core basis of this nonsense in the first place?

“This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace,” Obama said. “Let me repeat: It would just be one option: those who prefer their private insurer would be under no obligation to shift to a public plan.”

Wait a minute: this sounds like the typical liberal flip flop and yet another example of democrats confusing the will of the American people for some mysterious Republican conspiracy to block their (socialist) goals.

I can tell honestly tell you that most of the people I’ve talked to who’ve attended any town hall meetings were genuinely concerned about the proposed changes to their healthcare. Yes, there were some individuals who attended meetings just to be disruptive or bring attention to whatever cause they’re trying to promote at the moment, but that was from both sides.

So this ridiculous notion that Republicans are somehow turning the public against this (socialized) healthcare plan is utterly laughable.

I think it has more to do with the fact that most Americans can see thru the cloudy haze of the democrats’ attempt to socialize healthcare in this country (among other things). It’s inefficient, limits choices and hemorrhages taxpayer money. I’m just guessing that people other than Republicans can see that.

Two weeks ago, the Post Office was called a “high risk” federal agency by the Government Accountability Office and the USPS is expected to have a loss of 7 billion dollars this year. And even Obama has said that Fed Ex and UPS offer more efficient service!

So what does this tell us? Maybe that the private sector is much more capable of running a profitable business than the government will ever be. This country was built on the hard work, innovation and determination of individuals; not on bureaucracy. Don’t believe me? When’s the last time you’ve been to the DMV? Do you really want the government running your healthcare?

So with that being said, I’d like to give a special thanks to all of our Armed Forces, the RNC, the Missouri Republican Party, the Illinois Republican Party, the College Republican National Committee, the National Black Republican Association, the Wall Street Journal, KSDK Channel 5, KTVI Fox 2 News, my personal assistant /gf #2 Jeanette (you’re f*cking with my education), Missy (stop it already), DeAngelo (hey jealousy), Kevin (stop the lottery people), Corey (you’re about to be a millionaire), and to all of my Republican Blogs and Bloggers (They’re really giving 2012 to us on a silver platter), my Libertarian blogs and bloggers (what’s next?), my Democrat blogs and bloggers (you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts), and to all Political blogs and bloggers: Let your voice be heard. GOP in 2012! If you’re not on the right, you’re wrong. Ready by 2011 to win in 2012! Cash for clunkers anyone? That’s what happens when you put democrats in office. Follow STL_Politics on Twitter

Rewind! Don’t Argue with (Liberal Democrat) Fools: A Republican State of Mind pt.2

Today on my Republican blog: A wise man once told me not to argue with fools; because from a distance, no one can tell who is who. This is entirely directed at my liberal friends (my Republican friends already know this concept), so libs pay attention. When you liberal democrats try to debate your trite and vapid points, have you ever noticed that you consistently exhibit the same behaviorisms and tactics when you come to the realization that you’ve lost? Allow me to show you the fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Does any of this sound familiar?

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
• Ad hominem – attacking the arguer and not the argument.
• Argument from “authority”.
• Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an “unfavourable” decision).
• Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
• Special pleading (typically referring to god’s will).
• Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
• Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
• Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
• Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
• Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not “proved”).
• Non sequitur – “it does not follow” – the logic falls down.
• Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “it happened after so it was caused by” – confusion of cause and effect.
• Meaningless question (“what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
• Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the “other side” look worse than it really is).
• Short-term v. long-term – a subset of excluded middle (“why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?”).
• Slippery slope – a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
• Confusion of correlation and causation.
• Straw man – caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
• Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
• Weasel words – for example, use of euphemisms for war such as “police action” to get around limitations on Presidential powers. “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”.

These are all rules that we learned as children (on the right) of how to detect when you’ve won a debate or an argument against a liberal. So yes, if we (on the right) come off as a little bit arrogant or dismissive, it’s only because we know that your point and premise are both invalid and not even worth discussing. Why would we continue have a discourse with you? It’s pointless! Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Somehow people on the left always seem to reverse that actuality. Sorry for this post being so short, but I just had to bring you liberal democrats back to reality and remind my Republican friends of why it’s so frustrating talking to anyone on the left. In closing, I’d like to give a special thanks to the RNC, the Missouri Republican Party, the Illinois Republican Party, the College Republican National Committee, the National Black Republican Association, the Wall Street Journal, KSDK Channel 5, and KTVI Fox 2 News. To all of my Republican Blogs and Bloggers, my Libertarian blogs and bloggers, my Democrat blogs and bloggers (stop it already), and to all Political blogs and bloggers: Let your voice be heard. GOP in 2012! If you’re not on the right, you’re wrong.

Don’t Argue with (Liberal Democrat) Fools: A Republican State of Mind pt.2

Today on my Republican blog: A wise man once told me not to argue with fools; because from a distance, no one can tell who is who. This is entirely directed at my liberal friends (my Republican friends already know this concept), so libs pay attention. When you liberal democrats try to debate your trite and vapid points, have you ever noticed that you consistently exhibit the same behaviorisms and tactics when you come to the realization that you’ve lost? Allow me to show you the fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Does any of this sound familiar?

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
• Ad hominem – attacking the arguer and not the argument.
• Argument from “authority”.
• Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an “unfavourable” decision).
• Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
• Special pleading (typically referring to god’s will).
• Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
• Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
• Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
• Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
• Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not “proved”).
• Non sequitur – “it does not follow” – the logic falls down.
• Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “it happened after so it was caused by” – confusion of cause and effect.
• Meaningless question (“what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
• Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the “other side” look worse than it really is).
• Short-term v. long-term – a subset of excluded middle (“why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?”).
• Slippery slope – a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
• Confusion of correlation and causation.
• Straw man – caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
• Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
• Weasel words – for example, use of euphemisms for war such as “police action” to get around limitations on Presidential powers. “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”.

These are all rules that we learned as children (on the right) of how to detect when you’ve won a debate or an argument against a liberal. So yes, if we (on the right) come off as a little bit arrogant or dismissive, it’s only because we know that your point and premise are both invalid and not even worth discussing. Why would we continue have a discourse with you? It’s pointless! Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Somehow people on the left always seem to reverse that actuality. Sorry for this post being so short, but I just had to bring you liberal democrats back to reality and remind my Republican friends of why it’s so frustrating talking to anyone on the left. In closing, I’d like to give a special thanks to the RNC, the Missouri Republican Party, the Illinois Republican Party, the College Republican National Committee, the National Black Republican Association, the Wall Street Journal, KSDK Channel 5, and KTVI Fox 2 News. To all of my Republican Blogs and Bloggers, my Libertarian blogs and bloggers, my Democrat blogs and bloggers (stop it already), and to all Political blogs and bloggers: Let your voice be heard. GOP in 2012! If you’re not on the right, you’re wrong.