Debating Myself

My second senior thesis is finished. This paper, written in German, was much more of a challenge in some ways than the Politics and Government thesis. Having chosen specifically to write two senior theses instead of simply writing one larger thesis on a topic that overlaps both subjects, I had a hard time finding my way to a topic of interest to me involving Germany.

My main problem was finding available resources in German to conduct strong academic research from. In the end I chose as similar road as my POLS thesis–namely reanalyzing an existing case-study.

I am interested in theories of federalism, generally, and the European Union as a sort of interesting new experiment in multi-level governance. However, looking specifically at environmental policy within Germany and the EU is ironic, because it is perhaps the type of politics that interests me the least. Luckily I was able to focus my paper on the theoretical implications of the division of power between Germany, the EU and the German Länder in the realm of environmental policy, and avoid tedious discussions of allowable levels of pollutants in rivers and streams.

Mainly, it is just really hard to write a substantial research paper in a foreign language you have studied for only four years–and I am probably most proud of my thesis not for its clear and original analysis (of which it has much less than my POLS thesis) but for my use of the German language. Since coming back to Germany I think my mastery of written German has probably increased significantly due to the outstanding support of my German professor (Professor Lorely French) and the insane amount of papers I had to write in German this year.

Oddly, I wrote more pages/papers in German this academic year than in English. Crazy.

For comparison’s sake, here are the vital stats on my German thesis:

• Pages: 43
• Words: 10,773
• Footnotes: 30
• Words (with footnotes): 11, 476
• Sources Cited: ??
• Sources Consulted: 83
• Appendixes: 0

And, I’m done. If anyone out there is fluent in German and interested, please feel free to read the attached PDF below. For those of you not fluent in German here is an English description of the theme of the paper:

The Federal Republic of Germany is a founding member of the European integration project and a strong supporter of the European Union. Yet the rapidly increasing centralization of European policy in the form of mandates from the EU is particularly complicated for Germany due to its federal structure. The sixteen German states, or Länder, have become increasingly active in the politics of integration in the last twenty years in an attempt to protect their traditional constitutional sovereignty. The Länder have been particularly active, sometimes against the wishes of the federal German government. The struggle against European environmental standards exemplifies how integration can be burdensome and costly for the Länder to implement. This study analyzes the different strategies employed by the Länder in defending their sovereignty.

“Purely Administrative Entities”? The Role of the German Länder in the European Union (PDF)

Regardless of what you think about Hillary staying in the race or not, you have to be excited about the way the prolonged primary has forced the candidates to engage people across the country who never were touched by election politics before.

This Washington Post article about Bill Clinton touring rural communities in North Carolina and speaking in them made me really excited for the prospect of the Democratic Primary descending on Montana. This election season has really brought the election to all fifty states in a way that hasn’t happened for a long time.

Small town America suddenly has big time political significance–that is a pretty exciting prospect.

In his book The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America, Richard J. Ellis writes:

“…no political position is strengthened by suppressing or slighting inconvenient facts or covering up weakness. Protected from criticism, any argument becomes lazy and prone to excess.”

Aside from being a fascinating look at how liberal, or egalitarian, movements are prone to descending into egalitarianism in regards to their own structure, Ellis’ words are important to keep in mind when thinking about the 2008 Democratic Primary.

While a slew of voices on the left are crying out for Hillary to concede to Obama so that the party can unite and to protect Obama’s ‘good name’, these voices are missing the point: after the Democrats pick a nominee the Republican attack machine will go into full swing.

The only way either of the Democratic candidates is going to be able to take on the Republican nominee in the general election is if they both push themselves to be better, refine their message, and “battle-test “themselves.

It is the same reason I am much more critical of political stances, policies, and politicians that I am sympathetic of–just because I support something doesn’t mean I don’t want to challenge its assumptions and facts to make sure they are sound and stable. The only way I will support something is if it stands up to my own challenges.

It doesn’t make you a traitor to your ideology to be critical, it makes you a positive force for improvement.

Today I turned in the fruits of over a year of my labor–my senior thesis in Politics and Government at Pacific University. It is a good feeling and I am actually very proud of the finished product. It is not quite a publishable paper, largely due to a lack of data, but it is a good paper calling for further avenues of research in rural education policy. You can read the abstract below to find out what the paper is all about, but I thought it would be fun to take a statistical look at my thesis:

Vital Stats:

• Pages: 41
• Words: 11,857
• Footnotes: 42
• Words (with footnotes): 13, 337
• Sources Cited: 38
• Sources Consulted: 74
• Appendixes: 1

For those of you interested, here is a summary of the thesis and what it entails:

Rural education policy research has traditionally focused on the sociological aspects of rural areas and often failed to take into account analyses of politics and power. Utilizing a more formal political analysis, this study describes the political universe within which educational policy in rural areas is formed. Using two case studies of the implementation of a national grant program, the Reading First grant, this study seeks to explore the different intergovernmental relationships that rural and urban school districts experience, and the institutional features of No Child Left Behind that place rural areas at a disadvantage when implementing national educational policy. The study concludes by suggesting ways that policy makers and school districts alike can craft future policies to accommodate the unique advantages and disadvantages of both urban and rural school districts.

If that sounds interesting I invite you to download the PDF and take a glance. It is a bit dry, so if you want to be spared the details you can skip to the conclusion and find the most salient points summarized nicely there.

The Myth of the Oak Tree (PDF)

The important thing is that it is done, and that I am proud of the finished product.

Here is a great video about how much our lives would be different if real life mirrored Facebook/MySpace. It is also a good crash course for anyone wondering what the dangers of such sites could possibly be.

Champions of the new left in South America (of the Chavez kind) are about to be faced with what seems to be a stark rebuke of leftist policies and Chavez-esque populism. Evo Morales, the populist President of Bolivia and self-appointed champion of indigenous people and the poor, is facing the apparent disintegration of Bolivia.

Residents of Santa Cruz are expected to have approved a state-wide referendum declaring autonomy from the Bolivian central government last Sunday. According to the Washington Post:

Five more of the country’s nine states — including all of those in the eastern lowlands that produce most of the country’s income — are considering similar referendums in coming months.

For those keeping count it could add up to 6 of the country’s 9 states declaring autonomy from the Morales-dominated central government.

Notably, the autonomy referendum does not declare independence. Leaders of the autonomy movement:

simply want more local control over taxes, the courts, property titles and police forces. An autonomous Santa Cruz would remain a part of Bolivia, and its institutions would still be connected to those of the national government.

This will certainly hinder Morales’ plans for a constitutional revision, but they were already in dire shape having been rather undemocratic (this is a favorite move of South American leaders, and even the distinctly un-Chavez leader, Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe, is rumored to be mulling a constitutional revision).

What is interesting to note here is that the issue of devolving power to regional autonomies appears to be an acultural and practically universal phenomenon. From the disintegration of Yugoslavia, to pressures for regional autonomy in Spain, to the long-standing Quebec separatist movement—the nation-state is under significant pressure around the globe.

In this case Bolivia is fitting into a seemingly normal pattern, as the pressure for devolution has divided up along ethnic/culture lines. States with lower populations of indigenous people are feeling threatened by the pro-indigenous policies of Morales, which some have even viewed as racist, and are attempting to separate and avoid conflict. The indigenous people, for their part, feel that Morales is finally representing their interests after a long period of repression and see the autonomy movement as a direct threat.

As one indigenous supporter of Morales put it to the Washington Post:

“They will be killing us — the indigenous — with this statute,” said Alejandro Antezana, who opposes autonomy. “We are going to fight to the death if we have to. We are not going to let them set up their ballot boxes this Sunday, even if that will lead us to confrontation and bloodshed. We have too much to lose.”

In general, if nation-states can’t learn to strike a balance between assimilating and integrating their diverse populations while allowing them to retain their cultural identity, they will always trend toward instability and devolution. The United States has been remarkable in this regard, absorbing millions upon millions of immigrants from diverse places around the globe. Of course, for the United States the assimilation process is lightened because by and large most immigrants choose to immigrate to the United States.

The indigenous population of Bolivia did not choose to immigrate there, or choose to let the Spanish conquistadors in. In that regard perhaps it is more fair to compare the US indigenous populations with those in Bolivia–and of course the US went the route of devolution there by granting Native American tribes significant autonomy (in exchange, of course, for taking all of their land and decimating their population…)

Mixing cultures and ethnic groups under one national government will always prove to be problematic. Bolivia, where the oppressed indigenous peoples finally have power at the national level, is proving that simply giving indigenous peoples power for awhile to run the government also can’t be seen as a solution. Some kind of power sharing, coalition forming, and compromise is needed to ensure stability and a sense of unity.

Unfortunately those words are a lot easier to write than to turn into practical politics.

UPDATE 1: The referendum passed by a margin of 85% in Santa Cruz. This blog post details a lot about the referendum and the electoral process throughout the day.

Update: Just found out that Obama supported gas tax holidays too, although it was during his time in the Illinois state senate. Thanks to Buck Naked Politics for the info!

Just as Hillary Clinton is beginning to rise in the national polls thanks to a surge of momentum from her win in Pennsylvania she manages, like so many times before this campaign season, to shoot herself in the foot.

People may not be outraged about it, and it may not stir emotions like Obama’s current problems with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but her recent proposal for a gas-tax holiday this summer (also proposed by John McCain–you might know him) has stirred up more than a little controversy. Top Democrats, like the Majority Leader in the House, have even lined up against the idea. Obama is enjoying telling voters that Hillary’s proposal will cost the government millions and save taxpayers only about $30 each.

Hillary’s side of the story seems to make sense at first, and I’m sure her campaign thought reasoning like what Buck Naked Politics’ D. Cupples summarizes here, would be very persuasive to middle class voters pinched by gas prices right now.

There’s just one problem: it won’t work.

Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, takes Hillary’s proposal to task in a recent article. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker has a great in-depth analysis of the economics behind the issue. If you take my word for it, here it is short and sweet: lower price = more demand and more demand will lead right back to higher prices because supply cannot be expanded. There simply isn’t enough oil.

The Machiavellian argument that Hillary knows it won’t be that effective, but it will win her more votes is okay with me, I support her and would like to see her win. But, that argument appears to fail as well. Fact Checker tell us that when a similar policy was tried in Illinois:

A poll by the Chicago Tribune showed that only 28 percent of motorists believed that they were actually paying less for gas as a result of the temporary suspension of the tax.

Not a significant enough part of the electorate to make a difference.

Across the Aisle features a great article by Brian Vogt discussing Hillary’s proposal and then suggesting some more sensible ways to deal with the gas price problems facing America. Essentially, inflate your tires properly (which will improve fuel efficiency by up to 10%) and let the government and private industry develop some long-term technological solutions that will reduce our dependency.

I agree, but I would argue that fixing the dollar crunch and managing the economy better to preserve consumers’ purchasing power would also go a long way to fixing this problem as well. A large rise in oil prices can be directly attributed to the falling dollar.

There is one aspect of Hillary’s proposal that people aren’t discussing that troubled me greatly (and Obama agrees with Hillary here). Again, from Buck Naked Politics:

That’s why I have called for making Exxon and other oil companies with record profits pay the federal gas tax this summer… I believe we should impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and use that money to suspend the gas tax and give families relief at the pump.

Now maybe it is just me, but windfall profits taxes always make me nervous. Sure, Exxon alone made over $40 billion in profits last year, but the market determines the price of gasoline, not Exxon. Exxon is simply the beneficiary of rising oil prices and the success of the OPEC cartel.

Here are some arguments against a windfall tax. My favorite:

The Tax Foundation’s Jonathon Williams and Scott Hodge remind us of more very unintended consequences:

… according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is that the 1980s windfall profits tax depressed the domestic production and extraction industry and furthered our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

So here’s to Hillary proposing two policies that in all likelihood will sacrifice meager short-term relief ($30 over 3 months) in exchange for:

• A high likelihood of rising prices later
• Decreased oil production
• Weakened support for alternative technologies (in the short and middle term)
• Further dependence on OPEC oil
• No additional political support

I’ll keep my $30 Hillary (maybe even donate it to your campaign so you can hire a new economic adviser). Let’s try to find a more creative solution. I know you can, and have, done much better. As Paul Krugman writes:

I don’t regard this as a major issue. It’s a one-time thing, not a matter of principle, especially because everyone knows the gas-tax holiday isn’t actually going to happen. Health care reform, on the other hand, could happen, and is very much a long-term issue — so poisoning the well by in effect running against universality, as Obama has, is a much more serious breach.

I have been deeply immersed in critiques of the market system this month, and my reading and thinking on the issue has happened to occur at a time I am about to strike out on my own financially–graduating college this May.

Thinking about the financial entanglements already piling up immediately following graduation (car insurance, student loan debt, rent commitments, etc.), I started to wonder if I was prepared to manage these and begin thinking about investment, retirement and savings.

And then it hit me. I’m not.

When most people hit the workforce for the first time starting off their career they have little or no experience or training in financial planning. It is like giving someone a car and not teaching them how to drive it first. Except it is more like strapping them into the driver seat of a car hurtling down a NASCAR racetrack and warning them that if they don’t drive right they’ll crash into the wall and badly injure themselves.

See this post at the Western Democrat listing the “debtor society” as one of the biggest issues facing American society. I have to concur (I mean Warren Buffet agrees too!).

The market system is incredibly complex and learning how to take advantage of its tremendous opportunities while avoiding its many dangers is as vital as learning how to buy food and keep clean. Maybe even more important, if you made enough money in the market you could actually pay someone to do those things for you. Yet we receive little or no formal training on financial matters. We don’t really talk about financial literacy, and those of us that do probably enjoy a sizable advantage.

Without getting into overarching judgments about the validity of the market system or the way capital is regulated (which is certainly a debate we as a society should always be having) we have to accept that we live in the here and now, and the here and now is dominated by a global capitalist economy. Shit. So how do you live well within that system? What are the instruments of that system, what are their functions?

One possible explanation for some degree of the growing inequality of wealth in the United States of America today may very well be the different levels of understanding of the market system. Wealthy people tend to impart their knowledge about the market system onto their children, who then use that information (and seed money from their wealthy parents) to generate their own wealth. If you and your parents were not fortunate to possess such knowledge (or seed money) then you are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to generating wealth.

Knowledge is power. In a market-based economy basic knowledge can make a big difference in the returns you see on your investment.

That is why new campaigns about financial literacy are one of the most important components of reducing inequality (because the whole socialist revolution might still take awhile). We need to teach people about generating wealth now, and let them decide to take that advice or not. And if they want they can work for change within the system too. But don’t miss out on your own financial well-being because of ignorance (out of principle, that’s your choice–but if you miss out because of ignorance that is society’s failure).

So here are four super easy steps to help you get started:

1. Save money. I know, it isn’t revolutionary, but the first step is to decrease your spending–give up your Coldstone ice cream habit for example–and begin putting your money away for the rainy days that inevitably occur in a market-based economy. You will live long enough to see them.
2. Put your money to work. After successfully saving up some money, gradually put some of those savings to work. Always keep cash on hand, but after you have a strong base of cash start putting some excess into long-term investment vehicles with tax benefits (there are an array of these: ROTH IRAs, IRAs, 401(k), 529s, etc. ). If you want, put money in stocks and bonds on your own, but don’t feel obligated–you can make money by keeping it simple.
3. Start now. This seems odd, especially if you are young, but the sooner you start saving the more time your money works for you and the greater returns you get. Compounding interest is the back on which many fortunes are built. Start using it to your advantage right now.
4. Keep it simple. Don’t try to beat the market. If you save early you can take very low-risk investments with high long-term yields and make money without ever worrying or gambling on the market. Stocks have an average annual rate of return of 10% over the last 50 years. There will be booms and busts, but you should wind up with about 10% per year over the life of a 40 year retirement account.

If you don’t trust me or want more information, here are some further resources that you should definitely look at seriously for all kinds of other advice–tax, insurance, etc.

• http://www.mymoney.gov/
• http://www.360financialliteracy.org/
• http://www.jumpstartcoalition.org/

If you want a book there is only one you need to read, John C. Bogle “Common Sense on Mutual Funds”. Its intelligently written, interesting, and it will change your financial life.

We take finances very seriously in America, but we don’t seriously discuss them. A great majority of people are wholly unprepared for the kind of sound financial planning that will protect them from lay-offs or sickness and prepare them for a wealthy and enjoyable retirement. These are easy steps.

Because of the seriousness of financial advice and financial security in American culture, however, I am compelled to give a disclaimer here that I am not liable for any financial losses you incur as a result of taking this advice–I’m not trained in any way. Just think of me as a friend telling you about some great resources you should look at that will help you with financial problems.

Seriously. Start saving now.

A candidate for Congress in Indiana (a Republican) recently made an odd choice of public appearance. It was odd because Tony Zirkle, an apparently very devout Christian, was appearing at a celebration to honor perhaps the greatest monster of the 20th Century.

Yes, Zirkle was at a Nazi celebration of Adolf Hitler’s birthday.

Zirkle, who is apparently crazy, had this to say:

When asked if he was a Nazi or sympathized with Nazis or white supremacists, Zirkle replied he didn’t know enough about the group to either favor it or oppose it.

“This is just a great opportunity for me to witness,” he said, referring to his message and his Christian belief.

I know 5 year olds that have enough information to know whether or not to favor neo-Nazis and white supremacists (the correct answer, by the way Mr. Zirkle, is in fact to oppose them).

But this is probably just a ridiculous publicity stunt by this clown, and we are all playing into his devious hands. Go ahead, check out his campaign website and read what he has to say about any number of issues.

The Economist has some juicy quotes on their American blog if you just aren’t up for browsing insanity for more than a little bit. I can’t resist reproducing this gem for you here:

In an interview, Zirkle told FOXNews.com he doesn’t think he is too far out of the Republican mainstream. He believes the solution to STDs and out-of-wedlock births is to separate blacks and whites into segregated states, but he says that’s fully in the tradition of the party.

On the one hand it is a triumph for American democracy and freedom of speech that someone with such crazy ideas could run for office and not be silenced.

But on the other hand, he is crazy, and I’m a big believer that rights come with responsibilities–like not going to Hitler’s birthday party… even if that means sacrificing your opportunity to witness to hate-mongers.

For those of you wondering about what has happened in the Zimbabwe election since I last posted on the topic about a month ago, here is the answer:

Not much

The results of the presidential election have yet to be announced, though it seems the government is making a gesture toward releasing them by the end of the week.

International pressure is mounting, but it seems like Mugabe has some big time countries protecting his regime. Of course China has massive investment interests in Zimbabwe and would probably like the regime to stay stable, while South Africa is fighting a proxy political battle over Zimbabwe pitting President Thabo Mbeki against his political rival Jacob Zuma, who is a staunch supporter of the Zimbabwe opposition (and recently elected head of the African National Congress). The fear here is a win for the opposition in Zimbabwe could lead to a larger win for the opposition in South Africa.

All of this is occurring amidst election violence that some have said is like “a war zone”. In all twenty people are verified to have died from election-related violence, and the Economist ran a story this week saying that the toll may be much higher according some doctors in the country.

It certainly seems like Mugabe lost the election and is trying desperately to hold on to power. Honestly, I’m not sure they’ll be able to force him out–the UN is virtually powerless due to China’s position, and Africa remains largely divided on the issue, so the African Union can be of little help as well.

Mugabe may be able to draw on all of this external support to make up for the lack of internal support he enjoys. We’ll see how it plays out.

Just an update, the Economist ran an article on rural schools and their decay this week–the silent problem that my senior thesis attempts to partially explain.

I hope sometime soon to put up a longer post discussing both of my theses and giving some better analysis of the issues they contain.

Also, I will be putting the PowerPoint slides of my senior project presentations up sometime this summer, right now I am just trying to find the best way to convert them to Flash videos (probably using Camtasia Studio to take a screencast).

I will also be posting PDF files of my two senior theses–so be looking for that soon.

Technorati Tags: rural schools, PowerPoint

In 1.5 hours Grand Theft Auto IV will be officially on sale in the United States. Grand Theft Auto IV, in case you have not heard any buzz about it, is an adult-themed video game being realized on the next generation consoles (Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3) in which players play a gangster and commit increasingly violent and illegal acts in order to progress through the game.

The game, like its predecessors, has sparked much controversy. Many are calling for an outright ban, saying that the game is too damaging to children if it gets into their hands, and that it may promote violence and illegal behavior among them.

GTA IV is rated M for Mature, which means children under the age of 17 cannot buy the game without the presence of an adult–a rating standard that has been much more strongly enforced over the past few years. Essentially it is the video game “R” rating.

With that perspective, let’s point out that GTA IV is estimated to bring in between 200 and 400 million dollars in sales on its opening weekend alone.

If the game breaks $337 million in its opening weekend it will outsell any Hollywood film opening gross in history–despite having a much smaller target audience (essentially those aged 17 and older).

It goes without saying that GTA IV has become a showdown in the battle over video game regulation.

But should there even be a showdown? Parents and those opposed to violent video games need to learn to handle video games exactly the same way they handle violent movies (in fact the debate around video games mirrors much of the debate around violent films in the 70s and 80s)…

Parent your children. Talk to your children. Stop asking the government to be your child. The regulations are in place to prevent children from purchasing the game without parental consent, now it is up to parents to take that further step and ensure that their children don’t play the game without their consent, and if they do play it the parents engage their children in a healthy dialog about the game and its content.

Parents should use the game as an opportunity to talk about sex, violence and drugs with their kids. It could be a huge positive if parents use it as way to relate to their children and use the game to demonstrate to their children the differences between the virtual and the real world (as the proverbial doll parents used to use to talk to their children about anatomy, puberty and sex).

Historically, government regulation has been a lousy substitute for parental involvement. Those worried about their kids getting their hands on these games need to stop expending energy pushing their beliefs on the rest of the country (in an ultimately fruitless effort because it will always be unconstitutional to regulate such media based on its content–hopefully) and they need to focus their efforts on one of the most difficult tasks any of us could ever undertake–being a parent.

Be a parent, not an activist. Your kids will appreciate it and society will be better off if we are honest and direct with our children instead of relying on the government to dictate what they can and cannot do.

Montana Governor Brian Schweizter speaking in Washington D.C. in May 2006. I just stumbled across this video and had to share it. It just reminds me what I like about Montana voters and Montana politics, and what is often misunderstood about us. Montanans vote for the “right” thing when they are told honestly and directly what is at stake. With some honest talk and innovative policies Montana is doing the best it has for the past 12 years or so. Other Democratic politicians in the west should listen closely.

One of the most common, and overused, arguments out there is that of the slippery slope. Everyone is familiar with the argument that if agent X does A, then not too much later B and C are sure to follow. It is usually implied or intended that all of the actions–A, B and C– are negative things. For some reason this reasoning, when used for positive outcomes, is not called a slippery slope.

Just thinking today about how often this argument is used, and the sheer myriad of topics it is used for, made me want to write a bit about the difficulties in constructing a convincing slippery slope argument and the easiest ways to refute one. It is a good idea to always think critically when evaluating any slippery slope argument–they are usually misused and based on faulty logic.

However, thinking about the barriers to proving that positive outcomes will follow a single positive action in a sequence is a good way for thinking about the way slippery slope arguments have to be constructed.

Essentially the slippery slope argument relies on proving two things. First, the existence of a slope, and second, evidence that the slope is slippery. Without either of these two things the argument is not valid. It is not enough to show the existence of a slope–it must also be shown to be slippery.

To show that there is a slope there needs to be proof of a clear causal connection between event A and consequences B and C. It is not enough to say that if the government creates weaker rules regarding the necessity of warrants in search and seizure situations that the government will also soon limit the freedom of expression as well. The link between the two, that they are both constitutionally protected civil liberties, does not create a “slope” between them. To show a link, or slope, between these two actions a more observable and explainable political process must be found. An example would be showing that the laxer rules regarding warrants would create a call from interest groups within the government (i.e. intelligence services or police departments) to also limit the rules regarding freedom of expression to make the laxer warrant rules more effective.

This, of course, is a dubious link at best–but it is often argued that any reduction in one civil liberty leads to another. Such an argument needs to be evaluated carefully. One could also attempt to make a historical examination–which has questionable validity, but may provide some insight–and look at historical examples of one action leading to another. The argument would be a bit more persuasive if each time the government loosened up restrictions regarding warrants it also subsequently cracked down on freedoms of expression.

The historical example would also be useful to show that there has been a slipperiness to the slope between freedom of expression and search and seizure in the past. However, to truly show slipperiness it is necessary to show that it is plausible that barriers between the two policies being implemented are minimal.

As mentioned above, the slope not only has to exist, but it has to be slippery. Plausible barriers to the implementation of further policies along the slope must be minimal. This means that safeguards preventing further policies from occurring need to be non-existent, or a plausible reason for their failure needs to be demonstrated. In keeping with the above example, if warrant rules are made laxer, it may be argued that there is indeed a slippery slope toward the restriction of freedom of expression because those involved in reducing the need for a warrant also have similar desires to reduce the freedom of expression and have expressed this in some way. If in the warrant legislation wording was written that seemed to suggest a nonchalant attitude toward civil liberties in general, this would give us a clue as to the slipperiness of the slope.

Slippery slope arguments are often made, but often poorly executed. They are a rhetorical tool and people tend to believe them because we like to believe in simple causal chains. Yet, when making important decisions it is important to keep in mind that showing a slippery slope is actually a much more complex argument that describes a very complicated causal chain. With pundits and politicians on both the left and right using these arguments on a nearly daily basis, it is important be aware of their intricacies.

What will all the bloggers blog about when the media-saturated election funfest is over with in November?

I for one will be hoping to not have to hear every bloggers personal reaction to every word the candidates say anymore.

Not that all blogs are guilty of this…