Letter to the Editor

Upon reading Sam Wiles’ article I must admit I was left perplexed and intrigued. This was due to his use of arguments and words that had been cunningly fashioned to sound like they mean something, something important and compelling, but which upon careful analysis can be exposed as mere bull. With that said, I must say this article is in no way an attack on Mr. Wiles, his character or his intellect (both of which I hold in high esteem). Rather, it is an analysis of the faulty logic employed by Mr. Wiles in his article “Missing the Mark on the Markswoman”.

Let me first address Palin’s teenage daughter’s pregnancy. Sam addresses the Obama campaign and liberal pundits’ use of this story as “a questionable practice” employed to discredit Gov. Palin, on par with Karl Rove’s practice during the 2000 election of spreading rumors that fellow republican candidate Sen. McCain had an illegitimate black son. Now Mr. Wiles is making an argument based on an analogy, which is basically saying “x reminds me of y, so they must be similar.”

By using this analogy Mr. Wiles effectively seems to be saying that the Obama campaign’s tactics are the same as Karl Rove’s, who - along with the Bush administration - have been purveyors of disinformation for over 8 years (and who have ironically endorsed McCain). But hold the phone! Unfortunately, this comparison cannot and should not be made in the first place! The analogy employed is in its own nature so weak that the argument made seems absurd. Rove’s claim about McCain was a lie, while Obama’s claim about Palin’s daughter is true. Gov. Palin’s unwed teenage daughter is in fact pregnant; all the Obama campaign and liberal pundits did was simply utilize a fact they thought voters would care to know in the upcoming election. Thus, no critical distinction can be made rendering his argument invalid.

Another main argument that Mr. Wiles makes is that claims by the Obama campaign that Mrs. Palin is far too “inexperienced” are “ridiculous” considering Sen. Obama is even more “inexperienced.” Let us compare the resumes. Obama: Harvard grad, three years as a community organizer, created a voter registration that registers 150,000 new voters, 12 years as a constitutional law professor, eight years as a state senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, four years as the U.S. senator of a state of 13 million, therein sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran Affairs committees. Palin: attended five obscure colleges before graduating, runner up in Miss Alaska beauty pageant, local weather girl, four years on city council, six years as the mayor of a town of 7,000 and 20 months as governor of a state with only 650,000 inhabitants.

Now, I don’t know about Mr. Wiles, but to me there seem to be some incongruities between the two resumes. And Sam, I believe when Tom Brokaw said that Obama’s media scrutiny counted as experience, he was referring to the fact that Gov. Palin is an unknown (so unknown my computer believes I have made a typo when entering her name) who has never forgone intense media scrutiny.

Personally, I had a good laugh when Mr. Wiles made the “Gosling/ Manson” argument. Sam, by your logic, can’t I say because Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are in favor of preemptive war: when will I see the Hitler/Stalin ticket, seeing as they were both proponents of preemptive war? (Isn’t it fun to make absurd arguments?) Once again, the logic you have employed - albeit cunning - is fallacious in nature.

In the end, I must agree with Mr. Wiles when he said come November, make your decision based on what actually matters. Forget what parties say about opposing candidates and forget the unflattering labels that the media has repeated so much that they stick in our minds. Don’t let them (the politicos, the media and celebrities) substitute their opinions for your thought.

- Jeff Jenkins (‘10)