From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Bush/Clinton/Politics
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 21:58:23 GMT


I'm a little bored with politics, but since I read Christia partly to refute
examples of lousy thinking, and since bad arguments appear in politics as much
as anywhere else, I figured I may as well go ahead.

Michael Kline writes:

> Also, remembering what a pastor said clear back in the 60-70's.  Suppose
> Clinton has the answer to the economy. Suppose he gave it to Bush and he
> impliments Clinton's plan and the economy improves 25%?  Would Clinton be
> in danger of losing the election? I don't think so.
>
> What the pastor had said was, "If someone had the REAL answer to the
> economy and world situation, do you REALLY think they would keep it to
> themselves? They would be a national hero.

This pastor has apparently never tried to share his faith with anyone.

Many Christians believe that following Christ is the REAL answer to the the
problems people face.  How many times have you told someone that the Lord
Jesus is the REAL solution to the world's problems?

How many of these people treat you like a hero?

Taking this the other way, why doesn't George Bush lay out the details of his
economic plan right now?  Why did he say that he'd propose it next January?
Why hasn't he given the exact details of what would be cut and what would be
raised if he is re-elected?  If he really has the answer, why is he keeping it
to himself?


People whose lives are weighed down by sin want easy, painless answers.  I've
met a few who would do anything to feel better EXCEPT face up to their own
problems.  This principle also exists in elections: lots of people want the
US economy fixed, but they want and easy and painless solution.  There isn't
one.  They cling to the idea that one will be found, but it won't.

Paul Tsongas wrote out what he considered the answer -- and he isn't in the
race.  Warren Rudman was in the Senate for 12 years, and he's not running for
re-election because he gave up on getting anything done.  (BTW, these two have
gotten together and formed a non-partisan organisation intended to educate
voters on economic problems, since nobody really understands it fully.  For
details, send me e-mail.  Messages sent to the group might be missed.)

I'm sure the pastor referred to above was well-meaning, but if he really
thinks that the guy with the solution to our economic problems would be a hero
then he needs to think about it some more.


> Have heard on the radio that Clinton had raised over 100 taxes.

I strongly suggest that you go get a copy of the book _ How To Lie With
Statistics _.  Memorise it.  See how many times you can find something done
this year by the Republicans or Democrats.  (This business about Mr Clinton
raising taxes so many more times than Mr Bush will probably serve as a
textbook example of dishonest statistics for years to come.)


Examples:

Phil Gramm, trying to make Clinton and Democrats look soft on crime, said that
"Arkansas is 50th in the nation in law enforcement funding".  What he didn't
tell us is that Arkansas has a MUCH lower cost of living than the US average.
On average, it costs $48 per inmate per day to run a prison -- but in
Arkansas, it only costs $25 per prisoner per day.  Sen Gramm did not actually
LIE -- but he told a slanted truth with the clear intent to deceive.  Also,
he left out another statistic: the number of people in prison has gone way up
under Clinton's governing, far more than the national average.

But he isn't alone: the Democrats have been giving out statistics about how
low the tax burden is in Arkansas -- but they haven't been giving the data
with adjustments for the cost of living in Arkansas versus other states.
(Arkansas doesn't come out too badly even if you make the adjustment, but
the numbers look much better if you just talk in absolute terms.)


In all of these situations, the politicians have told the truth: the exact,
literal truth.  But they've told half-truths, and the end result is a lie.
And these aren't accidental omissions: these are deliberate attempts to slant
the truth so it looks good.  Senator Gramm is way too smart to make a claim
like he did without double-checking the numbers -- he knows about the cost of
living difference, and he knows how important it is.  I believe that he said
what he did in a deliberate attempt to deceive people, and that President Bush
approves of it.  The same goes for the Democrats who are playing fast & loose
with the truth -- they know they are bending the facts, and Bill Clinton does
not mind.

These people are politicians: they know how to run campaigns, they try to keep
an eye on what numbers will scare you and what numbers will elate you, and
they know how to tell half-truths in an effort to win your support.  If you
trust any politician to give you straight numbers about his record during a
campaign, you've probably been sold the Brooklyn Bridge at least once.


We all have to evaluate the politicians on the issues we consider important;
depending on what we want from a President, we'll cast our votes for the man
we think will do a better job.  Some of us will vote to re-elect Mr Bush, and
others with vote for Mr Clinton.  But I strongly urge everyone to vote from an
informed perspective, which requires doing homework on what the candidates
say.  So I will repeat: I think you will be well-served to purchase a copy of
the book _ How To Lie With Statistics _, and examine campaign statements in
light of what you learn.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli