14 votes

Same day Analysis of Candy Crowley's State of Union show June 3rd

I am planning to do same day analysis of the Sunday talk shows. I will critique the shows explaining what's wrong with them and occasionally what's right, why the American people cannot understand the issues as presented by the mainstream media and what they should have done instead . I will identify the solutions and principles involved.
This show June 3rd Show is a good example of what's wrong.
It focuses on the horse race, the political strategies of the competitors, the evaluations on how good or bad political leaders are doing and speculation on future results without attention to the problem or issue in question and what is the right solution. Solutions are all that can help the American people, thus, a robust debate on the issue is what is required in order to get to, the bottom line.
Playing politics by accusing the other side of playing politics
is a recurring theme in these talk shows. Examples: Obama accuses the Republicans of playing politics, and thus plays politics by accusing the other side of playing politics. Candy does not realize that Obama is doing what he accuses the other side of doing. She also quotes former President Clinton when he says that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republicans want to divide and conquer Where as the Democrats, want to work together. Is this statement divise? In both cases, the politician is in impuning the motives of the other side and making ad hominen attacks , instead of discussing the issue.The irony is that they are guilty of the very same thing they accuse the other side of.

http://youtu.be/jFyTs2xzkR0




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I haven't watched

the newest video, but Jan Helfeld's video with Pete Stark will be seen in the future as documented evidence that these people are clueless.

Why Don't Krugman Et Al Go After LeBron James?

http://news.investors.com/article/593098/201111291733/income...

Who Causes Income Inequality? It’s The 99%
By WALTER E. WILLIAMS

Benefiting from a hint from an article titled "Is Harry Potter Making You Poorer?" written by my colleague Dr. John Goodman, president of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, I've come up with an explanation and a way to end income inequality in America, possibly around the world.

Joanne Rowling was a welfare mother in Edinburgh, Scotland. All that has changed. As the writer of the "Harry Potter" novels, having a net worth of $1 billion, she is the world's wealthiest author. More importantly, she's one of those dastardly 1-percenters condemned by the Occupy Wall Streeters and other leftists.

How did Rowling become so wealthy and unequal to the rest of us? The entire blame for this social injustice lies at the feet of the world's children and their enabling parents. Rowling's wealth is a direct result of more than 500 million "Harry Potter" book sales and movie receipts grossing more than $5 billion.

In other words, the millions of "99-percenters" who individually plunk down $8 or $9 to attend a "Harry Potter" movie, $15 to buy a "Harry Potter" novel or $30 to buy a "Harry Potter" Blu-ray Disc are directly responsible for contributing to income inequality and wealth concentration that economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says "is incompatible with real democracy."

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Your commentary is very well

Your commentary is very well reasoned. Excellent commentary.

A few suggestions:
- Have you considered promotions for your work (other than your listener referrals?)
- The video has a dull awkward color scheme background.
- Although the content is good, I had to listen a couple of times before I synched with your style and understood you. (Not saying this is good or bad, just a comment.)
- Your style is very dry. Your facial expressions are bland and you do not seem enthusiastic or even interested in your own work. Be bold and believe in the truth, and the power and goodness of truth.
- You do seem confident in your analysis, but you come across as not confident in your audience. I think believing in your audience will improve your body language. Have faith. I believe your work is valuable. Do you believe it is valuable? Give it your all. Do you believe in the command, "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect"? In principle form, should we seek excellence and virtue in everything that we do?

?

I like his style. Calm expressions are much more credible than emotionally charged ones in my opinion. He does seem interested, especially since he doesn't let them get away with dodging the questions.

Please stop

being so arrogant to Jan. Did you read his last response? It was very appropriate. Who are you to talk down to him and give all of this condescending advice?

Go and do it yourself if you are so great. Jan has had his own television show and has gone one on one with the likes of Bolton and others and won. Unless you have done the same, please do not talk down like that. It only cheapens all of us. Would you speak to Ron Paul like that? Maybe you would, but it would not be justified.

Peace.

Hey GOP, where's my vote?

Yeah, it is difficult to give

Yeah, it is difficult to give advice without seeming condescending. He asked for comments and I gave my honest opinions. If something I said specifically offended you, which comment was it?

Maybe

by prefacing criticism with thanks for the great things and the admission that he's the only one doing anything like this-including any of us.

But thanks for making the above point.

Hey GOP, where's my vote?

Jan, Is the Socratic

Jan,

Is the Socratic interview method a good method? How is "exposing people to ridicule" a good approach? What benefits come about from this? I ask because I enjoy listening to your style, but I get frustrated and disappointed when people walk out of your interviews. I feel like the criticism was not beneficial to them. Perhaps the approach is wrong? Or perhaps you need to improve. I do see a certain potential if the approach can be mastered or perfected. You need to get into the minds of your interviewees without activating mental defense mechanisms. Perhaps come to the point quicker? If you are about to offend someone perhaps coming out with the cold hard truth, "I am conducting an interview with you today and I do not intend to offend you but my questions are designed to challenge your way of thinking." Perhaps a warning that this could get quite intense and if you want out of the interview tell me and I will delete the part or the whole interview that you do not want published. I want you to know that I respect your interview but I am working on an experimental interview technique, trying to find a way to dig deeper in order to expose not only your opinion but challenge the presuppositions and inner thinking behind your opinions. Perhaps expose contradictions in thinking.

Take for example, you believe I should ask you certain interview questions that you are comfortable answering. Why do you believe I should do this? See, I am more interested in why you believe I should ask you uncomfortable questions. Perhaps the uncomfortable questions are beneficial questions? Perhaps we can challenge ingrained assumptions that may or may not be true?

After all is not the purpose of this approach to arrive at truth? For example, Jan, let me ask you a line of questions. Do you believe redistribution of wealth is morally wrong? Why is this morally wrong? Why is forcing someone to pay taxes morally wrong? Why is doing something morally wrong, morally wrong? Why do we have this standard of morally wrong? Who created this standard? Does a majority agree that something is morally wrong and therefore it is morally wrong? Then why?! Is the person who created this standard a legitimate authority? Is the majority opinion a legitimate authority? Is myself a legitimate authority? How can you force me to agree forcing somebody is morally wrong? Do you have a pragmatic argument? Do you have a purely logical argument? If so, who says logic is authoritative? In order to have rules for logic do you not necessarily need to have a referee to decide what is logical? Is logic universal? Is logic the only thing that is universal? What is logic? Who created logic? How does logic have anything to do with what is morally wrong or right? Is there a moral wrong or right? What is morally right? Why is it morally right? Why do we associate a value with righteousness?

You can give reasons but isn't there always a why question behind it? I was walking the other night thinking about the possibility of parallel universes. Why not? Who is to determine that we have one universe? What is truth? Does truth even exist? How could truth exist infinitely? How could anything be infinite? What is infinite? Why do we even ask these questions? Why do we care? Why do we communicate with others? What is good? What is happiness? What is satisfaction? Why do we feel these things? Why do we want to feel these things? I could go on.

My point of all this is to ask the question, why do you do these interviews. Why why? What is the value? Why is it valuable? Do you do it for yourself or for others or for both? Why do you do anything "for" anybody? What is the value? Why is it valuable? Etc.

The more you can answer questions and understand the "why" behind the answers the better your questions and the more beneficial your interviews will be, in my opinion.

So, what is truth, Jan?

Philosophy!

You do not seem malicious with your posts necessarily so i will treat them as well-intended, you are about neck-deep in philosophy but you talk about it as though you are either being malicious and attempting to play mind games with someone who is consistant(never a smart plan, as anyone who's ever interviewed Dr. Paul could but won't tell you, gotcha questions are a big gamble for an interviewer, because someone who is principled and consistant will turn that around so fast that the person who tried to "expose" actually gets exposed instead.) OR you are simply a hobbiest concerning philosophy and your lack of formal education on the topic leaves you with gaping holes about the way things work or "why" they work that way. The socratic method, for instance, is the single BEST way to win an argument or as in this case, expose inconsistancy in the subject. Eventually if you can ask the right questions, the subject will always contradict themselves OR prove their consistancy by showing you(the interviewer) your lack of perspective. Since the subject must give his own answers to the questions, s/he will be forced to recognize the error in their thinking, and MOST people are so weak internally that their response is to get angry, and/or run for the hills. Which is why his interviews sometimes end early, because the people in question are unable to face their own errors, too much pride. More specifically in Jan's case here, as for why he does the interviews, im reminded of a quote from "Thank you for smoking," which by the way you talk i would assume you'd really like, or find deeply troubling if you had a different perspective than im reading, im not going to try to exact quote it and screw it up, but the point of the quote was that in a public debate you aren't trying to convince the person you're debating, you're after the people watching, you're tring to convince the "audience" that the other person is wrong, which in turn tends to convince people that you're right. So when the interview subjects forfeit the argument, those watching learn two things, that the subject doesn't know what he's talking about, and the interviewer might have something interesting to say. In order to directly(through your argument alone) convince someone of anything requires 2 things, percieved authority/knowledge, and the ability to communicate with others using their specific dialect of english. All people have emotional components attached to words, and emotions can be triggered by using the wrong(or right, depending) word. If you can discern their language then you can go for a direct convincing approach, if you do/can not, then you must use the socratic method to discern the power of individual words to that person by forcing them to use their language to explain their belief to you, and then you can start walking the circle back to the contradiction. Equally important to consider is the fact that Jan can only achieve one of the two things needed to convince the general public, all he can do is boost his percieved authority/knowledge, because his target is the masses he cannot tailor arguments to each person individually, thus Jan cannot make direct conversions of minds, he must allow the people to walk the path, which means using the Socratic Method to show that he is more consistant than the opposition, from that point, the people must begin to ask their own questions to learn the truth. thats the problem with the mass communication of today, nothing can truely be transmitted unless the recievers are simply empty jugs waiting to be filled with whatever liquid the owners find important.

Now for your line of questions which i don't suspect you wanted an answer to, but hopefully thats not because you think those questions don't have answers.. because most of them do. The reason that you think those lead to infinite "whys" is because you're using the wrong words or not understanding the classification of things in some cases. So let me fill in my answers to those questions and my notes on why some are worded such that they are easily side-stepped, and eventually you'll run out of whys.

Do you believe redistribution of wealth is morally wrong?
redistribution of wealth itself is not inherently wrong, why i bought a pack of cigarettes today, and my wealth now belongs to RJReynolds.. there's nothing wrong with that, however, forceful redistribution would yes, be morally wrong, but more important, it should be ethically objectionable to anyone who believes in the equality of one human being to the next (by the way, reverse socratic trap right there.. not a technical term lol but you can bet someone would try to make the argument that redistribution produces equality, and that is very easy to destroy by talking about the value of any individual person relative to any other individual

Why is this morally wrong?
morally... well its morally wrong because of the definitions of morality laid out by the church, morality is God's set of ethics, more fundamentally morality is based upon the acts that a benevolent God would condone. It is to do no harm and to stive to be holy or to act in a "Godly" manor. Since force is required to take money from you to give to someone else, you would need to harm someone, thus it is morally objectionable.

Why is forcing someone to pay taxes morally wrong?
the word force, which requires harm, which has been deemed ungodly by those with the "most" authority on God.

so here's my first big note, morality is subset of ethics, more specifically morality is the religious form of ethics, so asking someone who might not be religious about morality, could lead to a lot of trouble as some things are morally wrong but ethically ok depending on your set of ethics. This might entirely derail your attempt to convince as now the interviewee has the position of power to say morals are irrelevant to me, i live by a set of ethics which i find to be the MOST just at all times, morality doesn't do it for me, and so i believe you've either not done your homework or you are interviewing the wrong person. and this would be a big problem, its not likely to be that agressive, but the more possible case is that your next 5-6 question are now irrelevant and you're now in the position of trying to recover the direction of your interview.

Why is doing something morally wrong, morally wrong?
because that is the definition of those words, if your question is what makes things wrong in the system of morality, it is the vision of God and what s/he would approve of, or so i am told.

Why do we have this standard of morally wrong?
depends on what you believe, either God told a man, who codified it into church doctrine, or it was developed as a way to civilize the heathens.. either way its intended purpose is to give a society a set of rules or guidelines on good/bad or right/wrong behavior to generate the most benefit for the most people and to allow people to conduct themselves socially without having to fear all contact with an unknown.

Who created this standard?
origin, unknown.. but i believe i addressed this above

Does a majority agree that something is morally wrong and therefore it is morally wrong? Then why?!
no, a majority of people follow morals because the majority of people are religious, they believe that God laid out those laws, God is perfect, thus it is right. The fact is that morality itself is not strictly truth or anything resembling it, it is simply a way to live your life, in any society or group, minority opinions have less weight, religion was once the minority and is currently the leading theory, at least by total number of believers. If the majority of people are religious, it should be obvious that the prevailing ethics of the society would be morality.

Is the person who created this standard a legitimate authority?
impossible to know, the standard was created so long ago that only anecdotal records exist of that person's actual authority if records in fact exist at all. many would believe the creator is the ONLY true authority, God, so in their perspective obviously yes. In my mind everyone is equally qualified to create their own set of ethics to follow, how is the person who created morality responsible for what others do with his personal system? and why shouldn't someone follow someone else's standards if that person finds them to be the best set. Your line of questions seems to want to cast doubt on a lifestyle choice, freely made, and i find that to be ethically objectionable as well.

Is the majority opinion a legitimate authority?
depends on your usage of legitimate, and in what context. opinion itself does not make anything true or right universally though, so no.

Is myself a legitimate authority?
over yourself, absolutely lol, who else? surely you are your own master. just as before though, that doesn't make what you say true or right. it just means that you can determine what you want to do and live with the consequences.

How can you force me to agree forcing somebody is morally wrong?
i wouldn't nor do i think anyone should, but all i have to do is get a dictionary and the set of rules that make up morality to show you the facts, your belief at that point is irrelevant. I can't force you to be internally consistant, i can only tell you that i find inconsistancy of beliefs to be reprehensable and a waste of the potential of man, because inherent in inconsistancy is a lack of investigation, a wise man once said, the unexamined life is not worth living.

Do you have a pragmatic argument?
would need to be having an argument first lol but along the lines of your line of questioning, a personal set of ethics is the most pragmatic way of life, provided that you've actually investigated and thought-out your beliefs. A set of ethics created 2000 years ago is insufficient for the modern society, thus i must examine and apply what is applicable and decide for myself in the grey areas, nothing could be more pragmatic.

Do you have a purely logical argument?
i can present one if it helps, but the philosophical ones are usually sufficient for understanding where i am coming from, obviously specifics are difficult to portray with sweeping philosophical argumentation, in those instances, you certainly need purely logical arguments to lead from your assumptions to your theory.

If so, who says logic is authoritative?
logic is authoritative in the same way mathematics is, it is a user defined function, meaning we created the system to better communicate ideas. either system when applied properly is authoritative in the sense that since you've applied it properly you will get the expected result. The logic system was created by Aristotle, which is a hard man to argue against, because he didn't leave you much room to in many cases, the first real scientist in the modern sense in western culture. The way it works is like this: it breaks down into two forms of logic, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. each has its own set of rules that dictate the amount of certainty one can have in the theory or statements. Deductive reasoning produces actual fact-truth, but only applies in a few situations, where you use statements such as "all humans are mammals," "i am a human," therefore "I am a mammal." That is a fact, but mostly useless because duh! lol Inductive reasoning deals with less complete observations which have less severe divisions(all/none are now some/most) and as a result the conclusions of inductive reasoning are about how likely it is that the conclusion follows from the premises. The bottom line of logic is it only examines whether the process of reasoning you used is good or not, basically you end up saying, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true(deductive). Logic as the word or idea in modern society has been twisted to mean something different than it used to, just making sense isn't enough, you must also lay your argument out in specific forms for it to be valid. So perhaps re-wording your question would allow me to more directly answer what you actually want to know.

In order to have rules for logic do you not necessarily need to have a referee to decide what is logical?
we do, it is the Aristotilean Logic system, it has its flaws, and by that i mean it can't be used for everything, and new systems of logic are being developed all the time, in fact Aristotilean Logic is basically outdated by more modern approaches for certain things, however, that doesn't mean his system is wrong or broken, it just wasn't made for that stuff. The "referee" is the rules of the system, a little exploration of the study of logic would make this exceedingly clear.

Is logic universal? Is logic the only thing that is universal? What is logic? Who created logic?
oops guess i jumped ahead on these, but more specifically, yes logic the idea is universal, logic the system not as much for the reason i stated in my last response, it was only created to handle certain situations. Logic the idea is using reasoning to reach a conclusion from a set of premises. Logic the system is a codified way of discerning wether an argument is valid based solely on the premises and the form of the argument. and i answered the last one already.

How does logic have anything to do with what is morally wrong or right?
Only that logic can be applied to any argument. So if you are having a discussion about morality, then you can talk about the logic of the reasoning discussed.

Is there a moral wrong or right? What is morally right? Why is it morally right?
Think i've already pretty much made these irrelevant, but yes there is a moral right or wrong, in the same way as you have the color red and black, we defined them that way and thus it is. If you're asking if there is a universal ethics which acts like the laws of nature, meaning laws which can't be broken no matter how hard you try... well then i'd have to say no, but thats my belief, any religious person would tell you absolutely yes there is a moral right and wrong. Godly actions are morally right, because God says so. Or at least thats the basis of most morality arguments, people who are more educated on that topic would probably break it down quite a bit more than that.

Why do we associate a value with righteousness?
Now we're getting somewhere fun, at least to me lol Several factors go into why we associate value with righteousness, and everyone's reasons are a little bit different, in varying magnitudes we all strive to be our own ideal(some love the honor of the samurai others the strength and courage american revolutionaries, or any for that matter, some seek the pious lifestyle), which is shaped by history, society, parents, and our own romaticism, it is in all of us to be great, we're just taught not to believe that. Consider that only when you are a child is it societally acceptable to be a dreamer, to believe we can be absolutely anything and do absolutely anything. Once you hit about 12-15 you are expected to get over it and go get a job you bum, even if its flipping burgers. Everything in society is meant to mold you into its own "ideal" instead of allowing people to become what they wish, society stifles and chokes off ingenuity through one size fits all indoctrination. Only the rare few are able to throw of that bondage and be themselves. Those are the people who truely value righteousness, everyone else actually only values acceptance and positive reinforcement. Perhaps you should ask why should we value righteousness, and then define what you mean by righteousness, if you mean it in a purely religious sense, then, God is good/righteous and in all ways we should strive to be closer to God. If you mean it in the more universal sense, then we should value what we think is valuable/good, and recognize that all actions have results, and bad behaviors have bad results which reduce potential. At this point you need to discuss the 'meaning of life' and i would say for my part that reaching a large percentage of my potential is a large part of the goal of my life, and i think others should contemplate that issue for a long time, fairly early in life. Of course, thats my opinion, and that doesn't make it fact, i believe in the power to choose, and i expect that some or lots of people see more value in evil/unjust behaviors, i also expect there are just as many people ready to go hunting for just those sorts. Or at least that there ought to be or there would be if our society would turn back the clock on freedom.

So no, i didn't give you reasons, i gave you answers, some of which are opinion, but thats because there are no facts about those things, there is no singular fact about why people value certain things or act in certain ways, you can't just reduce everyone into a form mold the way society would like, and by trying to do so in a conversation or discussion, you've already shown how much consideration you give to the individual. There isn't a why to a lot of answers, at least not relevant whys. Continuing to ask why beyond the premises of the discussion doesn't lead you anywhere nor does it invalidate what the person is saying, its just a lack of desire to investigate the idea for yourself, since most of the question's that have the kind of why's you're worried about are philosophical in nature(not having an answer). In other words, the only way you'll ever be able to ask why is if you're given an incomplete answer. At which point the why is simply for more information. Beyond that, the question why is for babies mostly, and i mean that nicely, it is for those without the tools to ascertain the answer on their own, through thought experiments for the philosophical, research for the factual.

So like this.. why were you thinking about parallel universes? but why would you think about that? why does that have value? why do you value things? why does it have to be parallel? why does it matter who gets to determine that we only have one universe? why should anything matter to you? why live out the night? why not just end it right now? Sure i can throw out why's all day long, but they're all stupid and pointless, or an attempt to clarify, which really doesn't need the word why.. The only person you should ever ask those kind of whys is yourself. Matter of fact, i believe 'why' may be the most useless word in the language; i can't, at the moment, think of a single 'why?' which couldn't be stated without the word 'why'...
The answer to 'why?' is: 'because im your mother and i said so'... remember?

Now you should definately seek answers and sometimes its just easier to say why.. but that doesn't mean that somehow there's no truth or actuality to statements which preceed said why. It just means YOU don't understand, which is rarely what you want to convey. "what makes you believe..." is a far better question for trying to draw out a thought process, why just leads to more junk.

And so we come to the end, where the entire point of your message was to ask why a (hu)man does something... as if you didn't know the answer, why does a (hu)man do anything? Because it is percieved at the time to be the right thing to do.... The proper answer to that question in my mind is, why not? What is it to be, if not to shape and change and become and help others become everyday? To strive to see your vision implemented is all that there is to exist for. So now ask yourself.. 'why am i alive,' 'why should i continue to live,' 'why not walk away.' Perhaps then you will understand why Jan is Jan, and if you still can't relate to his vision/mission, ask yourself why not.. and what he has that you don't. If, that is, you were actually curious. I mean honestly.. you already know all his answers, why do you try to change your friends, why do you try to convince ANYONE of ANYTHING? because you believe in SOMETHING and you desire something.

P.S. Socrates was said by the Oracle at Delphi to be the wisest of all the Greeks, and upon contemplating/testing that he realized that he was the wisest of all the Greeks because he knew how much he didn't know whilst all the others thought they knew. The socratic method was the method to destroy convention, meaning it was the attack on the established ideas of the time, it challenges all assumptions and lays bare their gaping holes. That one man that publicly challenged any man to debate him and debated politicians with his method and laid bare their supposed knowledge changed the entire shape of history. He knowingly paid for his wisdom with his life. He said it was worth it. So why did he do it?

I think the why questions are

I think the why questions are most important. Although they reveal I do not understand something, holistic thinking leaves room for learning. My purpose is not to win an argument or reveal a contradiction. I want to engage in constructive dialogue where both the interviewer and interviewee learn something of value. I do not feel content not understanding "why". I find this question fascinating because the answer to "why" questions are rewarding. For example, "why do I study for this test?" I already understand the material. I have not memorized everything but do I really need to memorize information I can look up in a reference? Do I really need to get an A instead of a B on a test? Is there true value in "earning" an A. Does this automatically make me a better person. No! Understanding the reason I take the test enables me to study more effectively. Now I can go online and research a related topic about perhaps an application or something that I do not already know rather than wasting my time.

sure

but where we are finding disagreement is that you talk about asking why questions to other people, but your example is a why question you've asked yourself meaning your argument is not supported by your example. I agree that asking yourself why or seeking truth through why internally is a very good thing, it is an opportunity for growth through investigation. However, asking others why tends not to have that same effect. My final point on the word why was that it was way to vague to have any use and all questions formed with the word why are better formed with different words because there is less ambiguity. You showed that point well in your example.. the question why do i study for this test has a million answers, most of which are completely useless and uninformative, but all the questions that followed that why question were the actually useful questions in determining what you wanted to know, none of them used why... the question might better be asked what would be gained by studying for this test or what value am i obtaining by studying for this test, or what is the purpose of studying what i already know, or any other question that seeks a specific answer instead of a randomly chosen one. if you're asking yourself then its normal to proceed from the vague to the specific in searching for truth, but you should have already moved past the vague when you're engaging someone else. If a person is so uninformed as to truely require the word why, that person is better off with his ears open and his mouth shut, absorbing as much as is necessary to begin an initial investigation of a topic on his own, when arriving at specific questions concerning a topic that person can then proceed to a more detailed discussion, and as you showed, why is irrelevant and subjective. What was rewarding to you wasn't the answer to why, it was the determination of value which provides satisfaction in that case, because the truth is the answers you came to did not tell you why you study, they told you what you gain from studying. the answer to why is.. because. The will to power is the way we live our lives in one form or another, you study because you seek something, you wish to gain something, its the same reason a person does ANYTHING. Thus, why is not an important question to ask, what value do i gain from this is the relevant question.

I took a philosophy class in

I took a philosophy class in undergraduate and learned enough (not just from class time obviously, I am a philosophy amateur) to understand your criticism. I can see that "why" questions can be re-phrased as "what makes", but that is sort of what I mean when I say why. Of course, others are given free reign to answer whatever they want. So I can see that why questions are beginners questions. I am a beginner and now I have learned how to ask more productive questions. Thanks for taking the time to help me out.

I wrote a paper on Descartes for my philosophy class. And he basically tried to prove he existed and pretty much disproved everything until he was content to say, "I think therefore I am". So my line of "why" questions was mostly to suggest that we really cannot find truth, or at least not fully, and not on our own. I personally do believe in an absolute truth so my premise is that truth is infinite and since we are finite we cannot know it. Although I also believe that truth is revealed and that Jesus was truth revealed on earth. Of course, when I think about it I doubt but investigation and experience only confirm that I am on the right path. "Seek and you will find." A fundamental principle of knowing truth is looking for it. "Ask and you will receive." Asking questions increases knowledge. "Knock and it will be opened unto you." I think all these truths do suggest that God wants to reveal truth to those "who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to understand."

The value I gain from asking questions is increasing knowledge and understanding. I used "why" questions because that enables me personally to question myself and try to remove the lies and contradictions inside my mind. I interview others because I want them to know the truth as well because, "the truth will free you" and I want them to be free. What makes me want them free? Probably I enjoy being free and remember myself in their shoes previously and I did not like being ignorant. Also, community is better if people know truth and are free.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Why I do the interview's

I do the interviews for the benefit of the viewers. I do the interviews to reveal contradictions in the politicians thinking that they and, or the viewers may not be aware of; so that the viewers can think about what is the truth regarding what is the optimal public policy. This is often the beginning of changing a person's mind. First, they must be convinced that they are necessarily mistaken because two contradictory conclusions can not both be true.

If the politician is contradicting himself he is necessarily mistaken. The voter may also have the same contradiction in his mind and he is also necessarily mistaken. Thus, it behooves him to determine which of the two contradictory conclusions is true, if any.

I do not do the interviews to ridicule politicians. Only to investigate the truth. They ridiculed themselves by their irrational behavior and expose their true character to the public. This is quite beneficial to the voters who can then know the true character of the politician they are deciding to vote for or not. They can know the most important thing about the politician - whether he is willing to reason or not.

Whether I convinced the politician or not, is of secondary value. I do however, sometimes get them to admit that they are mistaken and make the right choice.

Regarding your recommendations on how to conduct interviews. If anybody proceeded as you suggested they would get no interviews. The politician would say, thank you for letting me know, I've decided not to do the interview. What I do is an intellectual expose'. You don't tell the double dealer that you're going to expose him and expect to catch him. But by all means, you go ahead and try and see how many interviews you get. The fact that I have interviewed so many high-profile politicians and journalists is an amazing feat in itself, if I do say so myself. Do you know anybody else who has done it? I wish there were 100 Jan Helfeld's doing interviews, because that is what the country needs. I am doing what I can, so why don't you join me and do some? Good luck.

Jan Helfeld

I am not as smart as you and

I am not as smart as you and am still learning how to communicate to others effectively. I run across a profound apathy regarding knowing truth. My family listens to me and likes me because they know I am not against them. They know I want them to improve their reasoning, like I want to improve my own reasoning. But why do I want to do this? I cannot be content until I understand it. From my journey so far I have only realized I am farther away than I thought I before I started asking questions. I try not to force on other people because this is ineffective for them and also they sometimes misunderstand or rightly understand a judgmental intent on my part. I try to listen and be humble to know when to speak and when not to.

I really do enjoy your interviews and I agree, 100 more interviewers revealing policy makers contradictions will be beneficial for our society. My target audience has been those I know closely, but sometimes I feel discouraged when I do not see positive results. Whereas you do this for your viewers I do this usually one on one and in small groups and without a camera obviously. I want to go farther than just exposing, but this might be a good first step and I am truly grateful that you are doing this. It brings no glory to you personally but glories truth.

I have not watched all your videos, although I saw some on your YouTube. I was surprised at Biden's interview, Dinesh D'Sousa, and some others who actually did handle the approach well. This was encouraging. Personally, I try not to take offense (an impediment to learning) and I enjoy disciple. "The Lord disciplines those he loves."

I will share your a couple of your links on FaceBook and recommend you to others when appropriate.

Thanks for the reply. God bless.

My dad said

that the Democrats accuse the Republicans of what they do. It is the accuse the accuser tactic, and the public buys it every time.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius

your dad is 100% correct...

That is the #1 play in the dems playbook, and of course, with the help of the media, the majority of the public buys it every time.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

Satire & Humor. Use Satire & humer to poke fun at Punditry

That is what is sorely missing today's discourse.

The only place you can find it is .... ?

Yea, you get my point. Maybe the Daily Show and Some Cartoons.

Then there is the Colbert Report, its full of satire and humor, but its fully on one side of the Pundit divide. Hence, NOT what I am talking about here.

Libertarians are in a perfect situation to Call out BOTH the RIGHT WING pundits on their hypocrisies and call out the Left wing pundits on theirs.

Finally the Media, as Jan points out they ALL do these five things.

1) Horse race chatter.
2) Political strategies
3) How good or bad the politicians are doing
4) Speculating on their future prospects

all devoid of the following that people need to know.

A) brief history of the subject
B) brief summary of the issues involved
C) an EXTENDED discussion of the issues

Say the news wants to report on California governors election. What would help you more, 1-4 above or ABC above?

And would it not be GOOD reporting to keep punditry out of it? They would zero in on well made arguments and look for well made responses, and steer clear of name calling, smears and faulty reasoning. They would explore assumptions made.

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

reedr3v's picture

Also, graphic devices are useful in talking to today's

public used to Y.T. And they can convey abstract ideas quickly.

Some people

used to criticize these videos appearing on the DP (I always said they were a shining feature). Now, hopefully, it is clear that more people besides the Pauls should be looked at as leaders of our movement.

Thank you again Jan!

Hey GOP, where's my vote?

Jan Helfeld's picture

thank you for your support.

thank you for your support.

Jan Helfeld

+

I like that he points out the philosophical problems in the thing he's addressing, and defines the terms he uses. Logical arguments are much better than emotional ones, even though emotional ones convince more logically uninitiated people.