.
Yesterday there was the "fact" that University of Oxford, in giving it's Master of Phil in Middle Eastern Studies, never discussed climate issues.
.
Today David Brooks, never the sharpest knife in the drawer, begins his column with a spurious argument - one might call it a "false premise". This is a debate term that means you say something that is total bullshit to open, then argue any old point on your own terms. Someone may dispute your opening, but since it is nothing but a gambit to talk - you can concede the point and not lose your arguement.
.
An example would be to build a discussion about how make American Foreign Policy more hospital by saying something obviously untrue like "The last decade of drone attics shows that Americans don't value life…" But here is the truth; drone attacks don't really say anything about how Americans look at life. It might show how the American Military looks at war, but that's about it.
.
Example 2..
.
What? Go back to the opening sentence. Could someone remind me about the "rich debate on how to expand opportunity for underprivileged children"?!?
.
Rich Debate?
.
There was a lot of crap laid on teachers and the teacher's union - as I recall. But that wasn't about underprivileged children. There was a mild discussion of onerous interest rates on college loans. Does that make a "rich debate".
.
Arguing with the rest of his article is stupid. I read it, and it consists of a lot of handwaving that Barak Obama isn't doing enough to follow his advice. Which is made up on the fly and has no decade history - with or without rich debate.