They teach way too much english and history in school and not nearly enough physics (but that’s the topic of my next blog).

But the one subject that they really need to teach more of is rhetoric. Jay Heinrich believes that every parent should teach their children to argue and I agree.

To disagree reasonably, a child must learn the three basic tools of argument. I got them straight from Aristotle, hence the Greek labels: logos, ethos, and pathos.

Heinrich goes through each of the elements of rhetoric in turn and illustrates it with examples from arguments with his children.

Logos is argument by logic. If arguments were children, logos would be the brainy one, the big sister who gets top grades in high school. Forcing my kids to be logical forced them to connect what they wanted with the reasons they gave.

“Mary won’t let me play with the car.”

“Why should she?”

“Because she’s a pig.”

“So Mary should give you the car because she’s a pig?”

Repeat the kid’s premise (she’s being a pig) with her conclusion (therefore she should let me play with the car), and she has to think logically.

Logos is the one that gets technical people in trouble with their non-technical wives. Ethos is what gets them out of trouble. Sometimes.

Ethos, or argument by character, employs the persuader’s personality, reputation, and ability to look trustworthy. (While logos sweats over its GPA, ethos gets elected class president.) My kids learned early on that a sterling reputation is more than just good; it’s persuasive. In rhetoric, lying isn’t just a foul because it’s wrong, it’s a foul because it’s unpersuasive. A parent is more likely to believe a trustworthy kid and to accept her argument. For example, if both children — the entire list of suspects — deny having eaten the last cookie, ethos becomes important.

Me: “One of you took the cookie.”

Dorothy: “Have I ever stolen cookies before?”

Me: “Good point. George?”

Careful with pathos. Especially if you have a daughter.

Then there’s pathos, argument by emotion. It’s the sibling who gets away with everything by skillfully playing on heartstrings. hen a kid learns to read your emotions and play them like an instrument, you’re raising a good persuader.

Dorothy: “Dad, you look tired. Want to sit down?”

Me: “Thanks. Where did you have in mind?”

Dorothy: “Ben & Jerry’s.”

The article was even better the second time I read it. You should read it too.

New Majority on the AG decision to investigate the allegations of torture.

All those interviewed are curious why this is all happening at this time.  Many of them speculated that they are being used by the administration not only to appease the left, but also as a deflection for all the other problems Obama is having.  In other words, they are scapegoats for the Obama administration.  They all attest to the fact that none of the information coming out is new.  They all believe that there is no need for a special prosecutor.  The only reason Holder is appointing one is for a fishing expedition.  One former operative felt that “they don’t have any specific cases against somebody so now they are going to play around in the dark to try to find something.”

In interviews with NM, Congressman Rooney (R-FL), a former JAG prosecutor, said it is unfair to go back and change the rules after the fact.”  Congressman Hoekstra (R-MI) stated that the fact that “the Obama administration apparently is planning to reopen these cases after thorough review by nonpartisan prosecutors raises serious questions.”  Minority Whip Cantor (R-VI) went even further, stating that “I find it very troubling that this administration is turning on the servants of this country who were trying to protect Americans… that is not how we settle political scores with successive administrations.”

Glenn Greenwald on the same.

The fact that we are not really bothered any more by taking helpless detainees in our custody and (a) threatening to blow their brains out, torture them with drills, rape their mothers, and murder their children; (b) choking them until they pass out; (c) pouring water down their throats to drown them; (d) hanging them by their arms until their shoulders are dislocated; (e) blowing smoke in their face until they vomit; (f) putting them in diapers, dousing them with cold water, and leaving them on a concrete floor to induce hypothermia; and (g) beating them with the butt of a rifle — all things that we have always condemend as “torture” and which our laws explicitly criminalize as felonies (”torture means. . . the threat of imminent death; or the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering . . .”) — reveals better than all the words in the world could how degraded, barbaric and depraved a society becomes when it lifts the taboo on torturing captives.

Paul Krugman says that

The debate over the public option has, as I said, been depressing in its inanity.

and over at the New Majority, David Frum asked his contributors

Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance. Extending coverage to them has been a core goal of health reform proposals since the 1960s. President Richard Nixon offered a universal health plan in his first administration, but since then Republicans have hesitated to commit the nation to so costly an undertaking. Is it time to rethink? Should Republicans accept universal coverage as a goal?

Our survey says

No

The twenty-something responses to Frum’s question had a few common  threads. The most common was that universal healthcare would conflict with American values.

To insist upon guaranteed universal healthcare for every living person in America is to insist that healthcare is a universal right, which it is certainly not. If it were, then all Americans (especially conservatives) would be moved by the Declaration of Independence—which reminds us that government was instituted to “secure these rights”—to demand nothing less than socialized medicine. But, once again, it’s not.

and

Finally, it is not who we are as a nation.  We are not a welfare state.

Another theme is that,

The U.S. has a system of universal coverage now - it’s called “show up at the emergency room” - and while it is far from perfect, the overwhelming majority actually seem pretty content with it - at least any time we get down to the specifics of some other form of “universal coverage.”

The last is that the proposed health care reforms are a trojan horse for a complete government takeover of healthcare.

This is the equivalent of “dumping” by undercutting competitors’ prices, even at a loss, to take market share — but without the hit to earnings that some companies are willing to take.  The Democrats see this as an option to “keep insurance companies honest.”  I see it as a first step to what Obama et. al. have repeatedly clamored for over the years (new rhetoric notwithstanding).  A first step towards an ultimate take-over of the entire healthcare system by the “single payer” entity… Uncle Sam.

And these are from the non-crazy conservatives (you should hear what they say at The Corner).

The only great post comes from an enemy plant. It starts well.

The answer:  Mexico, Turkey, and the United States.  Ok, what is the question?

What are the only three OECD-countries — the 30 largest free market democracies, broadly defined — in which sizable numbers of citizens lack health insurance?

Not company our nation usually keeps.  Nor should it.  The idea that we can’t afford universal health insurance, as many NM contributors say, is just, well…let’s just say, it’s a bit more plausible coming from Mexico and Turkey, countries which are famous for sending legions of their people to wealthier countries like the U.S. and Germany. That enormous sum of money that Republicans keep warning us about–oh my goodness, over $1 trillion spread over ten years, the money it would take to insure about 97% of our population (to do it well, it would probably take about $1.4 trillion) — is less than 1% of our country’s estimated GDP over that same ten year period. [snip]  We can afford a defense budget larger than that of the next 20 countries combined.  We can afford an unfunded war in Iraq now in its sixth year.  We could afford to pay for the prescription drug bill and gratuitously launder about $200 billion of the taxpayers’ money to the insurance industry.  Yes, the United States can afford this.

He also takes on the story about how Stephen Hawking would have been left to die if he had been British and had to rely on the NHS.

But did it make any of you wonder:  What would happen to an American who suffered from what Hawking suffers from — or cancer, or severe heart disease — who lacks health insurance? Say, even the least sympathetic case, one of those arrogant 25-year olds, who think they are going to live forever, and wake up with a deadness in their legs, and are diagnosed with MS — I know someone like that, perhaps you do, too.  What happens to those people in America when they don’t have insurance?  What happens after they “show up at the emergency room”, in Bradley Smith’s inelegant phrase?  This is what a number of you seem to think is fully the equal of having quality health insurance (of the kind you yourselves have, about which more later).  So you’re diagnosed with MS or ALS, or you found some blood in your stool time and again, and you go to the ER, and you’re diagnosed with colon cancer.  So:  you followed Mr. Smith’s advice, and you showed up!!  Now what?

My favourite line:

People who couldn’t afford care would just be left to die on the street — after all, if they can’t afford healthcare, tough luck.  Just as if they can’t afford to buy that car, or a house, or sofa, or a lamp.  We don’t say, “Just show up at Crate and Barrel — you’ll get an emergency sofa, if you’re just ‘dying’ to have one.”

I have been very frustrated by the health care debate because it is so completely lost in wonkery. I can’t help think that if Obama stood up and painted the big picture of what this is really about…

Nor is it, ironically enough, like the sustained care that Stephen Hawking received from the socialists at the NHS.  And isn’t it odd, too, that we act as if people in these other countries we know well — entirely civilized, advanced countries like Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, France, even the UK — are dropping dead on the streets of the cities and town as if from the Black Plague every day.  Oddly enough, many of us have been to these places, and this isn’t true — people receive excellent medical care at less cost than our system provides.

…if he turned Eugene Debs’ excellent essay…

American conservatives write often about patriotism and love of nation.  I wonder:  Do they ever feel even a tiny bit of shame, maybe at least the blush of embarrassment, when reading that our country lacks the minimum level of social decency promulgated by every one of its peer nations — and that we stand at the bottom in this category with the likes of Mexico (a nation Americans frequently mock) and Turkey?  That even a dictatorship like Singapore provides universal care?  That our great free market ally, Taiwan, does so, too?  That this is just something that nations across the world, and conservatives, liberals and social democrats simply agree is a benchmark of modernity and civilization, no more controversial, but every bit as essential as the traffic light.

….into the kind of towering rhetoric we heard from him last year, the whole debate would be over by now.

Paul Krugman on Obama So Far.

It is too early. If we held this conversation at the end of the year and health care reform has passed and the economy is recovering, then Obama is the new FDR. If health care hasn’t passed or is something so emasculated that it’s not close to what people imagined, and an attempt to pass a stimulus has been rejected, then he’s another Jimmy Carter. It’s that simple.

Tom Tomorrow on the democrats so far..

I read the more sensible conservative blogs so I can keep tabs on what they are saying about how the dems are doing. I don’t trust my ability - or the liberal media - to be sufficiently critical or dispassionate so I rely on the sensible conservatives to give me a second opinion. It also helps to remind me that not all conservative commentators are dishonest or lunatics (a tricky thing in recent months).

David Frum’s New Majority is one such blog. It’s a joint blog with about 20 different contributors and only about 17 of them are lunatics and I came *this* close to unsubscribing. But then I would’ve missed this (posted in full because it is so good):

Those people protesting the death panels that will be deciding whether your grandma will have to be put down should be thankful that they don’t live in socialist Denmark where your grandma’s body parts might be recycled or used to warm their relatives.

Burnt bodies leave knee or hip replacements that can be recycled as scrap metal, says Allan Vest, the association’s chairman. Since 2006 the country’s 31 crematoriums have earned DKr 77,762 ($15,000) from 4,810kg of salvaged metal sold to a Dutch recycler.

[snip]

The International Cremation Federation, a lobby group based in The Hague, advises against commercialising the products of cremation. But the Danish Council of Ethics, a group including scientists, clergy and philosophers that advises parliament, has found no ethical reason to oppose recycling heat. Although it thinks burning granny especially to warm radiators would be indecent and illegal, cremation is a respectful and hygienic disposal of bodies.

Body Heat - The Economist

I am altering my will to require that my body be recycled.

I feel a Technology Crisis coming on. Here were my clues:

Exhibit A: I’ve been meaning to learn Flex for a while. I have got as far as “Hello World” four times now.

Exhibit B: The Rhapsody client sucks. I love having access to all the music in the world but the client really, really sucks. The web client doesn’t completely suck but it’s a web client so it sucks a fair amount.

Put those two together and you have yourself a challenge. Build a new client for Rhapsody in Flex. How hard could it be?

Pretty hard it turns out, because Rhapsody does every thing in its power to make it hard for developers to use their APIs for anything useful. They have an amazing RESTful API that was years ahead of its time. They have a fantastic affiliates program. But - to make sure that no one does anything useful with the API, they force you to use their crappy player.

Go read their forums and you’ll find four years of posts like this:

Dear Rhapsody,

I luuurrve your service but your client is crappy and I would like to write a better one. Hey! You know what? I have a great idea that would send new subscribers your way by the thousand! Just give me an api to play songs. I could even use your player if you’ll give me a method to play a song and let me know when it is done.

Love,

Your Biggest Fan

PS. Let’s make some $$$$ !!111!

And there are four years of replies saying,

Dear Biggest Fan,

We don’t have that API right now but I’ll mention it to product management and they’ll get right on it. Meanwhile we have this asinine JavaScript API. It doesn’t really do anything, but it’s what we have.

Respectfully,

Rhapsody

There was even one VC funded company that figured out a backdoor. The upside for Rhapsody was that they sent scads of new subscribers their way. The downside was that…no …wait…there was no downside. Anyway, someone at Rhapsody decided that they didn’t want all these new subscribers and set the lawyers on them.

I still check the forums for old times sake and there are still hopeful posts like this one:

Dear Rhapsody,

I love the new Flash Player. I see there is a sendMessage() method but I can’t figure out how to work it.

Hugs,

Another Huge Fan

and the reply pretty much says “Don’t be using the sendMessage() method or we’ll set the lawyers on you like those other people who wanted to help us make money.”

Makes you wonder.

Anyway. Fast forward to yesterday and I decided to make a start on my little project. I got stuck (as you do) and googled.

Instead of finding my answer, I found:

The Rhapsody subscription service, which is 51-percent owned by RealNetworks, lost approximately 50,000 of its 800,000 subscribers over the past three months

I went to the forums and found that they have just had big layoffs at Rhapsody. They are going to focus on their web services instead of client software. Oh. And they cancelled the affiliates program.

I wonder if they laid off the dude who decided that they didn’t want third party developers writing clients for their still excellent service?

Anyhoo.

Exhibit C: Napster just reduced their subscription service for all-you-can-eat music to $5 a month. They’ll even throw in 5 free mp3s of your choice. I was happy paying $15 a month to Rhapsody but if Napster’s client is even a tiny bit better, I am switching.

Exhibit D: I use my Sansa to play Rhapsody in the car. It’s pretty crap, but there aren’t too many choices. I’d soooo get an ipod if Apple had a subscription service (or let me use rhapsody).

Exhibit E: Napster works on the G1.

Exhibit F: I have been wishing I had a camera.

I don’t need too many exhibits to know that the times are a-changin’ and I might be finally ready to get a phone that costs more that $12, that has a camera and that plays music from a subscription service.

But you can’t rush into these things. I need to mull over the idea for a while. Maybe the interwebs will help me make up my mind.

I’ll finish my Flex app but instead of having it drive Rhapsody, I’ll make it drive the Most Excellent Squeezebox because the nice people at SlimDevices know that, if you have a great product, you don’t need to write all the software for it. Expose some useful APIs and The People will do the rest.