I do not believe DHMO should be banned. After reading the first paragraph of the facts page explaining what DHMO is, I quickly searched DHMO because the explanation did little to actually explain the chemical; it was then that I learned that DHMO is another name for water.

One of the issues with the website is its lack of credible research. Although there is a page showing select middle school and high school science studies (which have the potential to result in legitimate findings), the information given here is limited and lacks credibility. Another issue is the massive scope that DHMO covers. To improve the rationality of the arguments, the website should narrow its focus and give more detailed explanations on all or a select number of issues, rather than broadly state a few points repeatedly.

At the start of the 2015-year, the House unanimously approved the Hire More Heroes Act. The act itself amends the IRS Code to exempt employees with healthcare under the TRICARE or Veterans Administration from being taken into consideration when an employer applies for employee coverage under the Affordable Care Act. In other words, the act enables businesses to hire veterans as employees without actually counting them as employees under the Affordable Care Act if they already receive health insurance through the Veterans Affairs or Defense departments.

The Article linked below titled, The Hire More Heroes Act is misguided. There is no veterans’ unemployment crisis, takes an important but difficult position on veteran unemployment stating that, “there is no veterans’ unemployment crisis.” The author supports this claim with the fact that the post-9/11 veteran unemployment rate has reached is lowest level in seven years—and yet the bill was just passed this year.

While I am unsure if I completely agree with his perspective, the author demonstrates that the bill’s title is, as Luntz would agree, carefully crafted to achieve a political end. Whether you are reminded of World War II, the Vietnam War, or 9/11, the title of the bill immediately strikes an emotional chord across all generations. It places our veterans in the position of heroes, and who wouldn’t want to hire a hero?

The substance of the bill, as interpreted by the author of the article, serves no purpose and would in Orwell’s perspective, be considered slovenly writing. The author writes that, instead of framing our veterans as victims or heroes, veterans should be and are hired for their leadership abilities, high-quality training, and the other transferable skills they gained while serving. Essentially, the bill is years too late and has no impact (or even a negative impact). Thus the bill does not encourage deliberation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hire-more-heroes-act-isnt-what-veterans-need/2015/01/15/fa0bb264-9c3d-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html

I believe an ideal society would be made up of a combination of all three, however, at the core there should be an informed citizenry.  By having an informed public, a wise leader, sound process, and expert knowledge can arise naturally giving us (ideally) a well-rounded society.

A question such as this poses a “which came first, the chicken or the egg” problem. The “chicken or the egg” issue becomes clear when we read Dewey’s statement that, our political structure was initially built by “a group of men extraordinarily gifted in political inventiveness.” Here, Dewey—the promoter of an informed citizenry—gives credence to the importance of experts and/or wise leaders. However, once those leaders and experts developed a system in place, it was left to an informed public to keep it working.

Furthermore, once the public has become informed, they themselves can either keep in place or restructure any established procedures. Those procedures in turn develop a process for electing a wise leader. Or, on the other hand, both a wise leader and experts can rise from the informed public and establish sound processes.

While the system may have been started by a group of “extraordinarily gifted” men, it has not been successful due to experts. Even more so, its failure will come about, not solely due to poor leadership, but also due to an uninformed public. Some might even say that this is what is happening in the US today. (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ignorance-index-reveals-most-uninformed-nations-italy-us-south-korea-top-oblivious-list-1472319)

The filibuster has been defended as a great tradition of the US Senate and a great protection of the right of political minorities against political majorities.  But, like any tool or tactic, it can be used for good or ill.  Do you think that the filibuster is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing?  Why?  Would you recommend any changes to the procedure?  Consider the article “Filibusters and Cloture in the US Senate” for an account of filibuster procedures and their history in the US Senate if you are at a loss for details.

By now you are well aware of how easy it is to “cherry pick” evidence.  In the article you just read, Mike D’Angelo makes the case that the jurors in 12 Angry Men made a big mistake in their assessment of the evidence: while there was room for reasonable doubt about any of the pieces of evidence taken individually, their combined weight really leaves no room for doubt.  Do you agree with his assessment?  Why or why not?

You have learned a lot about the heuristics, biases, and cognitive shortcuts that can lead any of us to wrong conclusions.  And you have now watched a substantial portion of Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations, presenting evidence of weapon of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the Iraq War.  As we know, there turned out not to be any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Which of the heuristics, biases, and cognitive shortcuts you have learned about might have lead Powell and others to believe so strongly that the weapons were there?

Post a link to a webpage that you think contain a good example of an argument about one of the following types of proposition: fact, value, policy, definition, or interpretation.  Include a brief explanation of how you see the example working and of where it occurs on the page.  Complete this by the night before class.

Post a link to a web page that you think represents of good example of one of the following: deductive argument, inductive argument, argument by analogy, an enthymeme.  Include a brief explanation of how you see the example working and of where it occurs on the page.  Complete this by the night before class.

Do you agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned?  Why or why not?  Do the arguments presented by the site conform to the highest standards of rationality?  What could be done to improve the rationality of the arguments?

In the essay you have just read, George Orwell says that the “slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts” and admonishes us not to practice the kind of writing that “consists in gumming together long strips of words that have already been set in order by someone else.”  On the other hand, some language is very carefully crafted to achieve a political end, for instance Frank Luntz’s well-honed phrases: “climate change” and “death tax.” Share a link to a text that you think exemplifies either linguistic “slovenliness” or an adroitly-crafted phrase in the style of Luntz, then discuss whether or not the example you cite promotes deliberation.