Today, children, we are gathered together to formally present the first of what we must fearfully presume will be many (so, so many) BAFMELE’s. The BAFMELE (or “Birthy” for short) is our Birther Award For Most Egregious Logical Error, and will be awarded when necessary, though probably not more than once per week.
The Birthy is a great and terrible honor. Competition is fierce, and new contenders make strong plays nearly every day. Nominees for this week’s award included Sarah Palin, for her brilliant attempt at logic in her use of the term “Death Panel” to describe a non-existent entity in the healthcare proposal being discussed by the Congress, Mark Sanford, for his defense of his travel expenses as “international trade missions” from South Carolina to, uh, the world, and Terrell Owens, who seems bent on a Lifetime Achievement BAFMELE. All received careful scrutiny, but all fell under the crushing weight of this week’s most transcendent effort.
We are delighted to announce that, in a move seemingly orchestrated to demonstrate that “birthiness” is a bi-partisan character failing, the universe has given us (via the “interweb”) a winner.
Well, I am happy to see you, but this is an oar in my hand.
The inaugural Birthy goes to one-time Democratic presidential contender and former Vermont Major-Governor Howard Dean, for an argument he made this week in the Huffington Post, seeking to rebut Captain-Governor Sarah Palin’s “Death Panel” syllogism. Here’s the entirety of Dean’s argument, per se:
My wife and I have practiced medicine for over forty years combined. There is no truth now, nor has there ever been any truth to the idea that the government encourages euthanasia or infanticide.
This flimsy excuse for an argument gives us the flip side of the Ad Hominem attack General-Governor Sanford foisted upon himself earlier this summer (and is it just me, or are Governors particularly prone to logical fallacies? Nope, I’m pretty sure it’s not me) – where the classic Ad Hominem flaw involves casting aspersions on character in order to attack a claim, the version committed by Major-Governor Dean works in reverse. The flaw here might be suitably called the Ad Hominem Appeal, and this fallacy operates by making an appeal to an arguer’s virtue/s in an attempt to strengthen an argument.
The problem, of course, is that the length of time that Dr. Dean and his wife have practiced medicine does nothing whatsoever to establish whether or not our government encourages euthanasia (or infanticide). Maybe our government does encourage killing off the old and the young, or maybe it does not, but neither Howard Dean’s nor his wife’s resume has anything to do with it. To argue that a position is correct solely by virtue of being held by someone who has been a doctor, along with someone else who has also been a doctor, for a combined two score years, is to commit an egregious error of reasoning.
Here is a list of other things that Dean and Judith Steinberg could have done for a combined 40 years that would have been equally appropriate as an argumentative technique:
Sat on walls holding oars.
Fenced.
Eaten gelato.
They could have practiced their Jiu Jitsu for over forty years combined.
Posed for covers of Harlequin romance novels.
Held their breath underwater.
Held their breath above water.
Or trained Garter snakes.
Or Cummerbund snakes.
Any of those activities, or any of a literally limitless list (alliteration. Lovely), would have been equally effective in demonstrating any facts about the US government’s stand on smothering old people and babies. For the record, I am against smothering old people and babies. Almost as much as I am against lapses in logic.
So, for this silly attempt at argumentation, we owe congratulations to Howard Dean on this, the occasion of his (and our) very first BAFMELE. Bottoms-up, sir.
