Review: Kindle Income: How to Make a Living Writing Kindle Books; by Alex Foster

If you want to self-publish your own books for Kindle this little beginner's guide will help you get started.

Here you will find useful tips on finding potentially profitable ideas to write about.

The author encourages us to develop a system that will help us to write FAST and crank out one 10,000-word book per week. (I'm not sure the author actually does this himself – I can only find 7 or 8 books by Alex Foster on Amazon – but that is a quibble. Writing one book per week is an inspiring goal to shoot for even if we fall short.)

Once we do have a book to sell Foster reminds us that much of our success will come from having really good covers and descriptions and titles that will attract potential customers and use the key words readers are searching for. There are useful tips on finding good photos and making professional-looking covers.

For beginners, this book, gives tips on how to create tables of contents using different types of software. It also has sample disclaimers you can add to your book if you are writing about topics that could expose you to some legal liability.

When your book is finally ready to go Foster gives tips on pricing to maximize your profit and giving away free gifts to catch people's attention.

If a book doesn't sell, or if sales start to slow, the author has suggestions for freshening it up with, for example, new art or a new chapter.

One of my favorite lines in the book is "Commitment beats skill." Remember that when you start to feel discouraged or doubt your ability, and then get back to work!

If you want to be a successful author on Kindle I assume you will read many books to help you master the necessary skills. This little book should be one of them.

***

[This is a useful little book for beginners hoping to self publish their own Kindle books through Amazon.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below and the other ones throughout this blog to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

How to Save Social Security in 2018

There is an emergency coming for millions of Americans and that's why we need Democrats in charge of the House of Representatives right now!

Here's the problem:
The big Trump tax bill was supposed to pay for itself. Remember?

Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin told us straight out, "Not only will this plan pay for itself, but it will pay down the debt."

Even months after the tax bill was passed the Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow was still beating that drum when he declared the deficit "is coming down rapidly."

So... that turned out to be WRONG.

The deficit for 2018 has ballooned to $779 billion, a 17% increase over the previous year, and according to projections the deficit could go over $1 trillion for the next three years!

So the big tax bill did not reduce the deficit.
The deficit has actually increased.
The debt has increased.
We are digging ourselves deeper into the hole.

So what do we do now?

Senate Republican Leader McConnell helped push that big Trump tax bill through Congress and now he has a "plan" for dealing with the increasing debt: cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to reduce the deficit!

Trump and McConnell and their allies got the big tax bill passed, drove up the debt, and now talk about cutting the benefits many Americans rely on for retirement and medical expenses. We should NOT be happy with this.

The best chance of saving these programs is to put Democrats in charge of the House of Representatives right now! That will force the parties to compromise so we can avoid tax cuts that are too steep to be realistic (the Republican error) and also avoid benefits that are too generous to be affordable (the Democrat error).

If you love Republicans, fine. Vote for them every where else. But if you want to save Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid then put Democrats in charge of the House of Representatives right now so neither party will have enough power to destroy these vital programs.

You can watch McConnell's comments here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaAxcPCmBOc

***

[This looks like an interesting book about the Trump / Russia collusion case. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below and the other ones throughout this post to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

The Reporter and the Pig

I am usually more concerned with results than manners. On the other hand, some people are just so grotesquely discourteous, I have to draw a line.

On October 1, 2018 Trump insulted ABC reporter Cecilia Vega in front of the whole world as she tried to ask a question at a press conference.
He said she never thinks....

Now here's another clue for you all: The most fundamental reason I despise Trump is not because we disagree on political issues, but because he is a repulsive human being.

If you don't believe me ask your mom:

• Did your mom teach you that being rude is wrong?
• Did your mom teach you that insulting people is wrong?
• Did your mom teach you that making up mocking nicknames for people is wrong?
• Did your mom teach you that lying is wrong?
• Did your mom teach you that bragging about yourself all the time is wrong?

Trump does all of these things.

If we were still children, and Trump was the bratty neighbor boy, your mom wouldn't let you play with him, because she wouldn't want you to turn out that way.

Let's try to be good people.
Let's stop rewarding people who are rotten to the core.
Let's stop rewarding people like Trump.

Watch the exchange between the reporter and the pig here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/10/01/trump-insults-abc-reporter-cecilia-vega-you-never-think/1493105002/

***

[This looks like an interesting book about the Trump / Russia collusion case. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below and the other ones throughout this post to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

How to Think #15: Fresison

The 15th syllogism we will learn about is called Fresison. This is the last of the unconditionally valid syllogisms, but there are still nine more conditionally valid syllogisms. More on that later.

Anyway, for now, let's learn about Fresison.

Using letters Fresison looks like this:
No P is M.
Some M are S.
Therefore, some S are not P.

In words an example of Fresison could look like this:
No good people commit fraud.
Some people who commit fraud are business owners.
Therefore, some business owners are not good people.

This is a valid syllogism so if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Are these premises true? The second one is probably true, right? We could almost certainly find examples of business oweners who have committed fraud and even gone to jail for fraud.

What about the first premise? Is it possible that a person could do something wrong but still be a good person? That would be something to think about if you were trying to argue against this syllogism.

Now let's see how we can use Fresison to construct an argument.

Suppose someone says "All conservatives are stupid." You might think that is a little too extreme. "Surely," you think, "There must be SOME conservatives who are not stupid!"

Notice that what you just thought can be stated in the form of a Fresison conclusion: "Some conservatives are not stupid."

Let's plug that into the Fresison framework and see what it looks like:
No P is M
Some M are S
Therefore, Some conservatives(S) are not stupid(P)

To prove this conclusion we just have to work out what the premises are.

If we study the premises we will see that the way to prove the conclusion in this case is to find some group or characteristic (M), that no stupid people belong to but that some conservatives do belong to.

How about this:
No stupid person writes a brilliant book.
Some conservatives have written brilliant books.
Therefore, some conservatives are not stupid.

Now, this is a valid syllogism so if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.

Most people will probably agree with the first premise. If someone wanted to attack this syllogism they would probably go after the second premise and try to deny that any conservative has ever written a brilliant book. We could then respond that conservative political writer William F. Buckley, Jr. and conservative historian Paul Johnson certainly wrote brilliant books.

The response to that, especially if you are arguing on Facebook might be something like "Well, Buckley and Johnson were not REALLY conservative," or "Well, Buckley's books and Johnson's books are not REALLY brilliant."

At that point you would have to do something you probably should have done right at the beginning of your argument: define your terms. What EXACTlY do you mean by "conservative" and "brilliant" and, for that matter, by "stupid?"

***

Here is a good book to start learning how to think smarter and argue smarter.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on any of the book links in this post to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

George 6: Starting a World War

While still chopping a road through the wilderness, looking for a place to make a desparate stand against the French, George Washington wrote letters to the Governors of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland asking for help. The Governor and Assembly of Pennsylvania wasted time arguing about how any money appropriated should be raised.

Over and over in his military career George would experience frustrations like this with weak colonial governments, weak Governors, and militia units that felt they had the right to go home whenever they felt like it. By the time of the Revolution – still 20 years away - these experiences made George a firm advocate – unlike some other Founding Fathers - of strong central government, a strong executive, and a standing army.

In May George had his men start building a circular pallisade he called Fort Necessity at a place named Great Meadows. George's ally from his diplomatic expedition a few months earlier, the Seneca chief Half-king, sent him a message that the French army was on the move in his direction. His old guide Christopher Gist arrived to tell him that 50 French soldiers had passed his house 15 miles away. On the journey Gist had seen signs of perhaps the same group only five miles from George's fort.

It looks like George was spoiling for a fight at this point and he took 40 men to Half-king's camp. Here there were more signs of French soldiers on the move and George and his ally set out to track them down.

***

[This is one of the best single volume biographies of our greatest President.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

The young leader and his men, along with the Half-king and his men, moved stealthily through the forest searching for the French. Then..., well, then we don't know for sure what happened. Here is our chance to act like real historians and analyze bits of incompatible evidence. Check out the accounts of what happened at Jumonville Glen and then try to figure out what "really" happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumonville_Glen

Based on my studies this is what I think: George was in the lead when he spotted a group of French soldiers. Some of the French ran for their guns. I'm quite sure George would have ordered his men to fire first. According to his report to Dinwiddie he set out that day with the intention of attacking so he was ready to fight. The French returned fire and the gun battle blazed for several minutes. People were killed and wounded on both sides. The Indians seem to have stayed hidden in the woods for a time.

Then Jumonville, the leader of the French, although wounded, made his voice heard and got everyone to stop shooting. He said he had a written message from the French to the English. I believe George would have had this message brought to him so somone who spoke French could translate it for him. At this point the impatient Indians burst from the woods and started killing the wounded French and scalping the dead. The uninjured French soldiers would have rushed forward to surrender to the colonists to escape from the Indians. When George realized what was happening he would have rushed forward to stop the Indians, but not before they killed Jumonville who may have been on a diplomatic mission similar to the one George had gone on a few months before.

This fight on May 28, 1754, was George's first combat action. These were the first shots in the French and Indian War that would last nine years in North America and of the Seven Years War that would spread around the globe.

***

Note:

My biographical study of George Washington was intended for my own education but I thought I would also like to share what I have learned here on my blog. The main sources of information I used were:

First, "George Washington: A Biography" by Washington Irving. I like this one because it was written by one of our early American literary masters and because it was written so long ago that Irving often mentions talking with people who had actually seen George.

Second, "Washington: An abridgement in one volume By Richard Harwell of the seven-volume George Washington" By Douglas Southall Freeman. I wanted the complete seven volume set but that is not yet available on Kindle. Too bad. Still, this abridgement is a great work, packed with information.

Third, "Washington: A Life" By Ron Chernow. This is an excellent modern biography that came out in 2010, helping me to get some of the more recent research missing from the older biographies.

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Did the polls in 2016 GET IT WRONG?

I am interested in cases where almost everyone seems to believe something that is actually NOT true.

An interesting example from the 2016 election is that most people seem to believe that: THE POLLS WERE WRONG! I have heard Trump supporters say this and I have heard Trump opponents say this. It is accepted by so many people on both sides of the political divide that it might seem crazy to even challenge it now.

But maybe these are the beliefs - the ones most widely and unquestioningly accepted - that we most need to challenge.

So is this belief true? Were the polls really wrong in 2016?

Let's consider what the polls were saying just before the election. Here is an article that came out the day before the election that discusses the latest poll results. It is called “Presidential Election Polls for November 7, 2016” and appeared in Newsweek.

According to this article “Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton leads her Republican rival Donald Trump by 2.5 points, according to the Real Clear Politics average of most state and national polls. Clinton has 46.8 percent of voter support compared to Trump's 44.3 percent.”

The article also says that “Forecasts still show Clinton winning the election. “FiveThirtyEight” shows Clinton with a 65.5 percent chance of winning the election, while Trump has a 34.5 percent chance of victory.”

***

[So why did Hillary lose in 2016? Read this new book to find out.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

There is additional information in this article but I will focus on the two extracts above to evaluate the claim that “the polls were wrong.”

Before we look at the results of the election I would like to consider four points about the information above: what polls do, what “chance” means, the danger of lazy language, and what did these polls actually measure?

1. What do polls really do?

First, what do polls really do? Well, for one thing, polls do NOT predict the future. Polls tell you what answers people gave at a certain point in time. When you take polls at different points in time you get different results. If people who say “the polls were wrong in 2016” mean that the polls predicted Hillary would win but then Hillary lost, then that just means these people don't understand what polls do.

According to the article we quote from above Hillary had 46.8 percent of voter support at the time the polls reported on were taken. That does not PREDICT she will get 46.8 percent of the vote at some later date. If the election were still several weeks away many things might change, and many voters might change their minds, between the poll and the election. On the other hand, it is probably logical to assume that, if nothing significant has changed between the polls and the election, then Hillary will probably get about as much support as she had in the poll. But this is an ASSUMPTION based partly on the poll and partly on the belief that nothing has changed since the poll. The poll ITSELF does not predict anything about the future.

2. What does "chance" mean?

Second, what does “chance” mean? The article we are studying here says that Hillary has a 65.5 percent chance of winning the election. This does not mean that Hillary will win! It means exactly what it says, Hillary has a 65.5 percent chance of winning.

Let's illustrate this with an example. Suppose I give you two coins and a cup. I tell you to shake up the coins in the cup and then toss them out onto a table. I tell you “there is a 75 percent chance that there will be at least one head showing when you toss these coins onto the table.” You toss the coins and we see there is no head showing. If you then say, “Ha ha. Your prediction was wrong” you would be mistaken. I did not predict there would be a head showing, I just said there was a 75 percent chance that there would be a head showing and that statement is absolutely true even if, on any particular toss, no head is showing.

This is the same thing that happened to forecasters in the 2016 election. The polls themselves did not predict anything. The forecasts, based partly on polls and partly on other information, did not predict anything either. They did try to calculate the “chance” or “probability” that Hillary would win, and the fact that Hillary lost does not prove those calculations were wrong any more than getting no head when tossing two coins proves that there is NOT a 75 percent chance of seeing at least one head.

[Note: One big difference between tossing coins and having elections is that we can toss the coins many times to see if the calculated 75 percent chance of seeing at least one head really works out over many tries, while we cannot repeat an election many times to see if the calculated probability was correct. Still, the principle is the same. If the probability of something happening, like Hillary winning, is calculated as 65.5 percent, the mere fact that she did not win does not prove that the calculated probability was incorrect.]

3. The danger of lazy language

Third, the danger of lazy language. One of the statements from the article we quoted above is “Forecasts still show Clinton winning the election.” This certainly looks like a prediction that Hillary will win. Notice first, that this statement is not saying that polls show Clinton winning, but rather that forecasts show Clinton winning. But is even that LITERALLY true?

The statement above is immediately followed by another statement that explains what the author means. “FiveThirtyEight shows Clinton with a 65.5 percent chance of winning the election, while Trump has a 34.5 percent chance of victory.” In other words, saying that forecasts show Clinton winning just means that forecasters have calculated that Clinton has a higher probability of winning. As we showed above, even if Hillary loses, which she did, that does not prove that the calculation of her probability of winning was incorrect.

The problem here is just that people sometimes save time by using lazy language. Instead of saying the more accurate “Forecasts calculate that Hillary has a 65.5 percent chance of winning the election” sometimes people take a shortcut and say the less accurate “Forecasts show Hillary winning the election.” We have to be on the lookout for this kind of lazy language and it should usually be fairly obvious from the context of what we are reading.

4. What did the 2016 polls actually measure?

Fourth, what does the poll actually measure? The poll results quoted above, from just before the election, are talking about popular vote and not Electoral vote. It is natural to assume that whoever wins the popular vote will also win the Electoral vote because that is what usually happens. But it does not ALWAYS happen and 2016 was one of those unusual years when the winner of the popular vote did not also win the Electoral vote.

So here again, the fact that Hillary lost the Electoral vote on election day does not mean that a poll measuring popular vote a few days before the election, was wrong.

With all of these technical preliminaries out of the way we are finally ready to look at what actually happened in the election. According to the American Presidency Project Hillary ended up with 48.2 percent of the vote and Trump got 46.1 percent of the vote. What did the last polls say just before the election? According to the article we are discussing the average of poll results was 46.8 percent for Hillary and 44.3 percent for Trump.

This is pretty close agreement between the polls and the election, isn't it?

• The polls showed Hillary at 46.8 percent and she actually got 48.2 percent. A difference of just 3%.
• The polls showed Trump at 44.3 percent and he actually got 46.1%. A difference of just 4%.
• The polls showed Hillary ahead by 2.5 percentage points and at the time of the election she led by 2.1 percentage points.

Anyone who says the polls in 2016 “got it wrong” should take a close look at these numbers. The polls got it right! What caused the surprise was an incorrect assumption that whoever wins the popular vote will also win the Electoral vote.

***

[So why did Hillary lose in 2016? Read this new book to find out what her explanation is.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

George 5: Preparing to Fight the French

George Washington's journal of his diplomatic mission to the French in the Winter of 1753-54 was printed and distributed throughout the colonies and in England. By the time he was 22 years old then, George was already famous. The journal warned the British of French intentions in the Ohio Valley and paved the way for the Seven Year's War between the two great empires.

George's mission to the French had also demonstrated two of the characteristics that would make him great: courage and perseverance. He had dealt with difficult frontiersman, scheming French officers, and both friendly and hostile Indians. He had endured physical exhaustion, freezing cold, and heavy rain and snow. He had been almost shot, almost drowned, and almost frozen. But through everything that happened there is no sign that George ever deviated from his course, ever took his eyes off the goal, ever hesitated to take the next step forward, ever considered - even for a second - giving up.

In many ways George was a normal man. In some ways he even fell short of the skills or accomplishments enjoyed by other Founding Fathers. But what he demonstrated on this diplomatic expedition, and what he would show many times in later years was that when it came to courage and perseverance he did not fall short and he was not normal at all, but rather extraordinary. These are the same traits that would later carry him through eight years of revolution and then another eight years as President.

***

[This is one of the best single volume biographies of our greatest President.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Now that imperial conflict seemed inevitable, Governor Dinwiddie decided to raise an entire regiment and send it into the wilderness to thwart French schemes. George Washington was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. He would join the regiment as second-in-command.

The Governor understood that the race in the Spring of 1754 would be to see whether the French or the English would first reach the fork of the Ohio – the point where the Allegheny and the Monongahela rivers join to form the Ohio River. George Washington himself – in his Journal – had described this spot as ideal for a fort. When the French moved in the Spring they would undoubtedly find the same spot and reach the same conclusion.

Dinwiddie sent a Captain Trent with one company of soldiers (about 50 to 100 men) to reach the fork first and start building a fort. George set out with two more companies (about 150 men) on April 2, planning to join Captain Trent and take command of the new fort. Along the way George and his men would prepare a road for the regimental commander, Colonel Joshua Fry, who would follow along with an additional three companies and some artillery.

At a place called Will's Creek, far from the fork, George was surprised to find Captain Trent, and horrified five days later when Trent's men came straggling in. They reported that a force of 1000 French soldiers had arrived at the fork to seize their half-finished fort and drive them away. Trent's men had seen enough and headed for home. George heard rumors that more French were on the way with 600 Indians.

Far from home, with evidence that he would be outnumbered more than 10 to 1, George started looking around for a place to build his own fort.

***

Note:
My biographical study of George Washington was intended for my own education but I thought I would also like to share what I have learned here on my blog. The main sources of information I used were:

First, "George Washington: A Biography" by Washington Irving. I like this one because it was written by one of our early American literary masters and because it was written so long ago that Irving often mentions talking with people who had actually seen George.

Second, "Washington: An abridgement in one volume By Richard Harwell of the seven-volume George Washington" By Douglas Southall Freeman. I wanted the complete seven volume set but that is not yet available on Kindle. Too bad. Still, this abridgement is a great work, packed with information.

Third, "Washington: A Life" By Ron Chernow. This is an excellent modern biography that came out in 2010, helping me to get some of the more recent research missing from the older biographies.

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

How to Think #14: Ferison

The 14^th syllogism we will study is called Ferison.

In symbols Ferison looks like this:
No M's are P's.
Some M's are S's.
Therefore, some S's are not P's.

An example of Ferison in words would look like this:
No one who commits war crimes is worthy of respect.
Some people who have committed war crimes were soldiers.
Therefore, some soldiers are not worthy of respect.

If someone says all S's are P's – maybe, for example, that "All liberals are stupid," - you might think that is too extreme to be true. Surely there must be SOME exceptions; surely there must be SOME liberals who are intelligent, or, in other words, it must be that some S's are not P's.

You can use the Ferison syllogism to construct a counter argument. You want to end up with the conclusion "Therefore, some liberals are NOT stupid" which has the same pattern as the conclusion of a Ferison syllogism – "Therefore, some S's are not P's" - so now we just need to find an appropriate first and second premise to complete our syllogism.

The first premise of a Ferison syllogism is "No M's are P's." Given the conclusion we are trying to prove, the P in this line stands for "stupid." So we have "No M's are stupid." Now we just have to think of some group "M" that has no stupid members. How about Nobel Prize winners? That would give us a very reasonable sounding first premise, "No Nobel Prize winners are stupid."

So far we have:
No Nobel Prize winners are stupid.
Some M's are S's.
Therefore, some liberals are NOT stupid.

In the syllogism we are creating M stand's for Nobel Prize winners and S stands for liberals. Substituting these into the second premise we get "Some Nobel Prize winners are liberals."

Our final syllogism is:
No Nobel Prize winners are stupid.
Some Nobel Prize winners are liberals.
Therefore, some liberals are NOT stupid.

This is the valid syllogism Ferison so if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. We chose the first premise because it seemed obviously true. By doing a little research we can determine if the second premise is true. Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman both won Nobel Prizes in economics and both are generally believed to be liberals so it would seem the second premise is true as well as the first.

Based on this syllogism we conclude that the person who said "All liberals are stupid" is wrong. Our syllogism actually proves that "Some liberals are NOT stupid."

***

Here is a good book to start learning how to think smarter and argue smarter.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

The Vision of John McCain

Today is the funeral of a great American statesman, John McCain.

In the political environment of 2018 he had an unusually unifying and moral vision of America. He left us glimpses of that vision in his last book, "The Restless Wave."

He wrote:

"This wondrous land shared its treasures and ideals and shed its blood to help make another, better world. And as we did we made our own civilization more just, freer, more accomplished and prosperous...."

I don't know the details of McCain's foreign policy views but from this statement I believe he knew that business is important, but that everything in the world is not business. Human beings and friends and neighbors and allies are not businesses, and the relationships between friends and neighbors and allies are not business relationships.

Helping other countries doesn't mean we are losing, it means we are investing in a better future for all of us. When a friend or an ally needs help you don't try to calculate how much profit you are going to make, you calculate how much you can afford to give, and then you give it, trusting that everyone will be better off when you do the right thing.

He wrote:

"To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than to solve problems is unpatriotic."

Here McCain encourages us to stay involved in the world, to work together with other people, to spend less time looking for people to blame and more time looking for solutions and ways to make our country and our world better for everyone.

He wrote:

"We don't build walls to freedom and opportunity, we tear them down."

This line probably has more than one meaning but surely one of them must be referring to the issue of undocumented immigration to the United States.

I think McCain is suggesting here that we should treat people coming to our borders, and the undocumented immigrants who already live here, with honor and respect. They are, after all, just like us, our brothers and our sisters who are seeking freedom and safety and prosperity for themselves and our children just as we do.

Maybe it is impossible to take all these people in, but even if that is so, there is no reason to hate them, or to be angry with them, or to fear them. Even if we have to turn them away there is nothing to prevent us from wishing them well, and treating them well.

And maybe the image of tearing down walls to freedom and opportunity means that we need to start working with countries like Guatemala and Honduras and El Salvador to find mutually beneficial ways to help them become more prosperous and safe so the good people who live there don't need to leave their homes to find hope.

Maybe I am wrong about my interpretations here. John McCain was a Republican and I am a Democrat so I am sure we would have disagreed on many issues. But I feel certain that one part of McCain's vision was that the United States should always be a country where people respect each other enough to talk and to argue, to fight for what they believe in but to still find ways to compromise so that everyone in the country can all move forward together.

John McCain is gone. Let's hope his vision will never die.

***

[This was Senator McCain's last book. A good chance to get to know a fallen hero. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

A Life of Honor: John McCain

John McCain is gone. From naval officer to combat veteran to prisoner-of-war to United States Senator to Presidential candidate he was a part of American history for more than 50 years.

I have tried my best to be an independent, moderate, intelligent Democrat since 1983 and McCain was a Republican but he was one of the Republicans I most admired. Years ago I made a list of Republicans I could POSSIBLY vote for in a Presidential election and McCain was on that, admittedly short, list.

McCain spent his life in wars and political conflicts and I have spent most of my life in books but there are certain characteristics he had that I try to emulate.

• He believed in fighting for what he believed in which is why he was in Vietnam in the first place.
• He believed you do not take advantage of your position to get special privileges which is why he refused an offer to be released from prison in Hanoi because his father was an Admiral.
• He believed in trying to make America better.
• He believed in finding ways to compromise.
• He believed in criticizing his own side when his own side was wrong.
• Above all McCain believed in honor - telling the truth and doing the right thing, even when that is difficult.

As it happens I did NOT vote for McCain in 2008. In the end I decided the Democrats had the better candidate. BUT, if McCain had won in 2008, I would not have been afraid. I would have known that the United States was in good and honorable hands.

John McCain was a great man. We need more public servants like him in BOTH parties. Sadly, people like John McCain are rare.

There was a famous moment in the 2008 campaign that will go down in history. It was a moment when McCain showed that he would not stoop to dishonor even to win the White House. He would not accept a dishonest attack on his opponent even when that's what the crowd wanted to hear.

Wikipedia described the moment like this: "On October 10, 2008, a female McCain supporter at a rally said she did not trust Barack Obama because "he's an Arab." McCain's rallies had become increasingly vitriolic, with hecklers denigrating Obama and with rallygoers displaying a growing anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-African-American sentiment. McCain replied to the woman, "No ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues." McCain's response was considered one of the finer moments of the campaign and was still being viewed several years later as marker for civility in American politics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008

And you can see the video of that dramatic moment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk

***

[This was Senator McCain's last book. A good chance to get to know a fallen hero. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Did Trump Take a Chinese Bribe to Help ZTE?

Is Trump selling out the national security of the United States to make money for himself and his family?
That sounds like the plot for a spy novel but there is actually some circumstantial evidence of this that should lead to further investigation.
Consider the case of Chinese phone maker ZTE for example:

1. In 2012 Congress warned that ZTE and Huawei phones could be used for espionage against the United States.
2. In February 2018 the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Defense Intelligence Agency all repeated these warnings to a Congressional Committee. They advised Americans not to buy phones from these companies.
3. In the meantime the U.S. Commerce Department took legal action against ZTE for illegally selling equipment to Iran and North Korea.
4. The Pentagon has prohibited the sale of ZTE and Huawei phones on military bases because of the espionage risk.

So, if ZTE has violated US sanctions, and their phones are potentially a threat to US national security, this is certainly not a company the US president would want to help, right?
Well... here comes the interesting part:

1. On May 7, 2018 Ivanka got approval for a number of Chinese trademarks which will help to protect her financial interests in that country.
2. On May 10, 2018 China approved a $500 million loan to an Indonesian development which will include a Trump hotel, residences, and a golf course.
3. On May 13, 2018 Trump surprised the world by announcing that the US government will HELP ZTE and get them back to work FAST....

This is a very suggestive and suspicious sequence of events. Within a single week in May 2018 Ivanka got her trademarks from China, the Indonesian development Trump is associated with got its loan from China, and China got help from Trump on the sanctions against ZTE!
Is this just a strange coincidence, or did China just pay off the Trump family to get the president to help a Chinese company that has been identified as a threat to US national security?
My sources are listed below. If anyone finds an error in the facts I am reporting please let me know.
The Indonesian Project Gets its Loan https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/trump-organization-indonesia-project-will-benefit-from-usd500-million-chinese-government-loan-report-says.html
Ivanka Gets Her Trademarks https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ivanka-gets-5-china-trademarks-as-president-works-zte-deal_us_5b0a07eee4b0568a880c0a0d
Trump Decides to Help ZTE https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-defends-reversal-on-chinas-zte/
***
[This looks like an interesting book about the Trump / Russia collusion case. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]
[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]
***
Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

How to Think #13: Festino

The 13^th valid syllogism we need to learn is called Festino.

The form of this syllogism looks like this:
No P's are M's.
Some S's are M's.
Therefore, some S's are not P's.

This might look familiar to you because it is exactly the same as Ferio, which we considered earlier, except that the P and the M have switched places in the first line.

Now here is an example of Festino using words:
No honorable person takes bribes.
Some police officers have taken bribes.
Therefore, some police officers have not been honorable people.

Syllogisms are not just curiosities and they should not be used just to impress people with how smart we are. Syllogisms are thinking TOOLS and we should use them to help us think better and make stronger arguments.

Let's take a look at how Festino might help us think better in a real debate.

Imagine someone says “ALL police officers are honorable people and deserving of respect.”

You might think that statement is exaggerated and that, in fact, it is likely that “SOME police officers have NOT been honorable people.”

But how can you prove that not ALL police officers are honorable people? If you notice that your statement is the conclusion of a Festino syllogism you can now look at the first two premises used in that syllogism to see what you will need to complete your syllogism and prove your conclusion.

The first premise of Festino is: No P's are M's. In this case, given the conclusion we are trying to prove, P is “honorable people,” so we have “No honorable people are M's.”

So what could M be that would make a person dishonorable? We are looking for characteristics of a person that would justify us in calling that person dishonorable. We can make a list of M's that might include things like lying, cheating, stealing, taking bribes, etc. If any of these things are true about someone then we could reasonably argue that person is dishonorable.

Now look at the 2^nd premise of Festino which is: Some S's are M's. In this case, given the conclusion we are trying to prove, S stands for police officers and potential M's are the items on our list of dishonorable characteristics.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is a book that should help us identify faulty reasoning so we can correct it:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

If you can associate one of the items on your list with police officers then you can prove your conclusion that some police officers are dishonorable.

You can look through the items on your list to find one that will be most persuasive to your audience and also one that can definitely be associated with some police officers.

You could use “lying” but maybe your audience will think that lying is so common to human beings that it doesn't really prove that a person is dishonorable to any unusual degree.

You could use “cheating” but you might decide that this word is too vague to be used in an effective argument: do you mean cheating on a test at school, cheating on your taxes, cheating on a time sheet at work, cheating on a spouse?

Using the taking of bribes seems to work well in this case. It is easy to understand what it means, it is clearly dishonorable, and there is no doubt that SOME police officers have been caught taking bribes.

So now, with help from the syllogism Festino, you have created a strong argument against the statement that “All police officers are honorable.”

The syllogism you have now constructed proves that at least some police officers have not been honorable:
No honorable person takes bribes.
Some police officers have taken bribes.
Therefore, some police officers have not been honorable people.

With practice this use of syllogisms will eventually become automatic. Arguments will take form in your mind so quickly you won't even be aware of the process but you should still be able to examine the final argument and demonstrate that it is a valid argument such as a Festino syllogism.

***

I believe this is classic work by a genius but I have not read it. Please beat me to it and then send a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.org.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Did Trump Obstruct Justice? - A Thought Experiment

Just doing a thought experiment....

Imagine a mayor of a small city:
The Chief of Police in that city is investigating the mayor for possible crimes.
The mayor fires the Chief of Police.
The mayor tells someone that when he did the firing he was thinking that the investigation into him was unjustified.
Later he tells someone else that the firing took the pressure off him....

Now, I'm not a lawyer but I kind of think that, just based on this alone, I might be able to persuade a jury this mayor was trying to interfere in an investigation and obstruct justice.

Just thinkin'.

***

[This looks like an interesting book about the Trump / Russia collusion case. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

George 5: The Dangerous Mission to the French

When George Washington arrived at the French fort he met the Chevalier Legerdeur de St. Pierre who accepted the letter and spent two days with his staff preparing a negative reply. The French were continuing to lay claim to the lands along the Ohio River and had no intention of leaving.
While waiting for the answer George studied the fort, taking notes and drawing diagrams that might be militarily useful if war broke out. He had one of his companions count how many canoes the French had and how many more were being constructed to get some idea how many soldiers they were planning to transport.
When the French answer was ready George and his party left the fort traveling by canoe down freezing streams where floating blocks and sheets of ice threatened to crush or poke holes through the boats. When they arrived back in Venango the Half-king and his companions decided to stay there with the French. George was very worried about this, worried that the French speeches, presents, and alcohol would eventually draw the Native Americans away from the English and make them allies with the French if war broke out. The only thing he could do was get the French answer, and his own report, back to Governor Dinwiddie in Virginia as quickly as possible.
***
[This is one of the best single volume biographies of our greatest President.]
[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]
***
George Washington led his little expedition out of Venango on Christmas Day 1753 – headed home to Virginia. They plowed through deep and freezing snow that exhausted the horses. George dismounted to lighten the load on his horse and had the other men who were able, do the same. After three days the slow pace was too much for George to bear so he decided to press ahead of the group taking only his guide Christopher Gist with him.
George and Gist camped one night before reaching the ominously named Murdering Town. Here they found a group of Indians who seemed to be waiting for them and asked many questions about where the rest of their party was and when it would arrive. The Virginians gave evasive answers since they feared these Indians might be allies of the French and planning to prevent the completion of George's mission.
As the two travelers pressed on with their journey one Indian insisted on joining them. He offered to carry George's pack and then later offered to cary George's gun. George decided to keep the gun. Suddenly, in a broad meadow the Indian turned and fired his rifle from 15 paces away and then ran to a tree and began reloading. Neither George nor Gist were injured and they quickly captured the Indian.
Gist wanted to kill their assailant on the spot but George refused. Instead they pretended to believe that the shot might have been an accident, or maybe a signal to the Indian's friends. They told hm to go on ahead and they would follow his tracks and catch up with him the next day. As soon as he left George and Gist built a large campfire to make it look like they were staying put and then they set out to trudge through the snow all night long to make their escape.
After hiking through deep snow for more than 24 hours George Washington and Christopher Gist reached the Allegheney River. Both sides of the river were frozen but the middle was still flowing. The travelers used their one hatchet to chop logs and build a raft. They used poles to try to push the raft across the river. At one point George's pole got jammed in the ice and he was thrown into ten feet of water. After Gist helped George back onto the raft they found themselves unable to reach either shore. Fortunately they were able to land on an island in the middle of the river. That night was bitterly cold and Gist got frostbite on his hands and feet.
By morning the great cold had frozen the river hard enough that they could walk across. Soon they arrived at the cabin of an Indian trader named Frazier. While they rested and recuperated there George met an Indian queen named Aliquippa. She was offended that he had not visited her on his way into the wilderness. He was able to console her with a gift of a watch-coat and a bottle rum.
George and Gist left Frazier's cabin on horses on New Year's Day. They reached Gist's home the next day and from there George traveled alone back into the more settled parts of Virginia. He met with Governor Dinwiddie on 16 January 1754 to deliver the letter from the French and his own report, thus completing his mission into the wilderness.
***
Note:
My biographical study of George Washington was intended for my own education but I thought I would also like to share what I have learned here on my blog. The main sources of information I used were:
First, "George Washington: A Biography" by Washington Irving. I like this one because it was written by one of our early American literary masters and because it was written so long ago that Irving often mentions talking with people who had actually seen George.
Second, "Washington: An abridgement in one volume By Richard Harwell of the seven-volume George Washington" By Douglas Southall Freeman. I wanted the complete seven volume set but that is not yet available on Kindle. Too bad. Still, this abridgement is a great work, packed with information.
Third, "Washington: A Life" By Ron Chernow. This is an excellent modern biography that came out in 2010, helping me to get some of the more recent research missing from the older biographies.
***
Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Officer Delgado and the Pulse Nightclub Attack

Police officer Omar Delgado was on duty in Eatonville, Florida on the night of Sunday, June 12, 2016. He was responding to a disturbance about 2:00 AM when he heard a "signal 43" from Orlando. A signal 43 means "Rush! Officer needs help."

Delgado drove eight miles south expecting the emergency - whatever it was - would be over before he got there. But it wasn't. When he arrived at the Pulse nightclub shots were still being fired and victims were still in the building. The shooter would not be stopped for another three hours.

Officer Delgado went into the building with the 2^nd wave of responders and saw dozens of people lying on the floor. He assumed they were playing dead and he called out to them: "Hey, come on, get up! Let’s go! We have cover for you. Police! We’re here.”

As he called out, Delgado realized in horror that these people were not playing dead, they WERE dead. Or they were dying. As he watched, he saw some of the bodies start to twitch as the last thin threads of life gave way. "They didn't want to give up," he said. That terrible sight triggered months of nightmares.

A fellow officer who had served in Afghanistan said the horrors in the Pulse nightclub that night were worse than anything he saw in the war.

Bullets were still flying and the police were worried there might be a bomb in the club when Delgado went to work trying to identify and save the living. As he helped one woman escape he deliberately shone his light in her eyes so she wouldn't see the bloody bodies all around her.

One of the people he saved was Angel Colon who remembers: "He grabs my hand and says, ‘This is the only way I can take you out.' I’m grateful to him, but the floor is just covered with glass. He’s dragging me out while I was getting cut.” Angel asked Delgado to carry him instead. Colon said. “I just saw him, his size, his glasses, so I’m like, ‘Just help me, please.’”

When he couldn't save anyone else Delgado stood guard over the bodies. He saw some of the dead had terrible disfiguring wounds and felt like he had to stop that from happening to others. He guarded one woman about whom he said, "She was kind of my baby, per se, I was watching her. I knew she was gone."

At one point that evening Delgado sent a message to his children, letting them know he loved them, just in case. He finally left the scene at 9:00 AM.

Delgado suffered from PTSD-like symptoms for months after the attack. He found it difficult to sleep and felt panic whenever his cell phone rang. The sound reminded him of the phones of the victims ringing in the night club, the phones of the dead, the phones that would never be answered again.

Delgado tried to go back to work on the 4^th of July weekend after the attack but he had a flashback and could not continue. Since then he has been treated for nightmares and depression.

Unable to perform all of the normal duties of a police officer, and thus losing out on overtime, Delgado sought financial help from a GoFundMe account and also from the OneOrlando Fund which was set up to provide money to survivors of the Pulse night club attack. Unfortunately, that fund was only for people who were actually in the club when the shooting started so it did not provide any assistance to Officer Delgado.

Ultimately, Delgado lost his job just six months before he would have been fully vested in the pension plan. (According to one source he will receive a pension equal to 42% of his salary but that will only kick in 10 years from now.)

When Officer Delgado was called to risk his life to save people at the Pulse night club he did his duty. When his traumatic experiences left him needing help it seemed there was no help to be had.

For more information on Officer Delgado check the links below:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/i-thought-they-were-playing-dead-officers-are-haunted-by-scene-at-orlando-club.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-police-chief-describes-officers-heroic-actions-orlando/story?id=39934416

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/orlando-shooting-police.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/orlando-victim-hugs-hero-police-officer-pulled-safety-article-1.2677882

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/health/beyond-the-call-delgado-orlando/index.html

http://lawofficer.com/exclusive/tale-two-stories/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/pulse-nightclub-hero-dismissed-police-department/story?id=51613661

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/police-officer-ptsd-pulse-massacre-loses-his-job-n827171

***

[In this book shooting victim Gabby Giffords argues for responsible gun ownership.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Review: Travel Photography: Travel Photo Essentials by Margaret Brown

This is a tiny but useful book for travelers who want to bring better pictures home from their journeys. It seems to be aimed at beginning photographers which is what I am so that is perfect for me.

There are many helpful tips in a small space here, tips that will help you improve the quality of your travel photos and, just as important, there are some great pictures included to provide inspiration for your own efforts.

One expression I never heard before is "zoom with your feet," in other words, get up close to your subject and try to fill the frame with it. There is lots of advice about making use of shadows and sunlight to get interesting effects.

Ms. Brown reminds us to look for the unconventional shots, the pictures other people are NOT taking. She advises us to look for different angles by getting up high or crouching down low or even lying flat out on the ground and not to worry if we "look a bit odd" taking photos.

That's good advice!

The Kindle edition of this book seems well worth $6.99 to me and it is so short we can give it a quick read before every trip to help us bring some memorable photos back with us.

***

[This excellent little book will help you take better pictures on your next vacation!]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Collusion!

Our free press is good at giving us pieces of the puzzle.

Books like "Collusion" by Luke Harding help us put the pieces together.

Christopher Steele worked for MI6 as a Russia expert for 22 years before he went into business for himself. (One of his private jobs led to uncovering the famous bribery scandals involving FIFA, the world soccer organization, and to the indictments of 14 people.) When he gathered the information that went into the famous Trump dossier he took it very seriously and brought it to an FBI contact he knew in June 2016.

Steele also shared the Dossier with Sir Andrew Wood, the UK ambassador to Russia from 1995 to 2000. Wood also took the information seriously and shared it with Republican Senator John McCain. McCain sent a former Bush administration assistant secretary of state named David Kramer to talk to Steele about the information he had gathered. Kramer took the dossier seriously and reported back to McCain.

By then McCain took the dossier seriously and delivered a copy to the head of the FBI who was named James Comey.

NONE of these people believe the dossier is 100% true. It is raw intelligence. The information was collected from several different informants. Parts of it will turn out to be true and parts of it will turn out to be false. But all of these people believed the dossier, and the issues it raised, needed to be investigated, and I agree.

Let's look forward to Mueller's final report so we can see what he has learned.

In the meantime this great book helps us to see what was going on behind the scenes in the 2016 election.

***

[This excellent book pulls together the story of what happened between Russia and Trump campaign during the 2016 election. A book that should be read by every American.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

George 4: Visit to Barbados and First Mission Into the Wilderness

Before George could become fully engaged with his new military career there was a crisis in Lawrence's health to be dealt with. Lawrence had tuberculosis and his doctors advised him to spend the winter of 1751-52 in a warm climate to see if that might help.

On 28 September 1751 the brothers sailed for the island of Barbados, in the Caribbean, and spent 36 days at sea. This was George's one and only trip away from the United States. He kept a journal of his observations and experiences while on the island. One of those experiences was his first visit to a theater to see a play. This became a favorite form of entertainment for him in later years.

George's journals tend to be very unsentimental. They generally record practical information about soils, crops, weather, fortifications, etc. At one meal he recorded a long list of tropical fruits that were served including water-lemons, guava, and "forbidden fruit" which was probably grapefruit.

***

[This is one of the best single volume biographies of our greatest President.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

While in Barbados George came down with small pox for three weeks which left him with light marks on his face but also made him immune to one of the most dangerous killers of soldiers during the American Revolution. Unfortunately Lawrence's health did not improve.

George sailed for home in December, planning to bring his sister-in-law to Bermuda where Lawrence would meet them. Unfortunately, Lawrence continued to deteriorate, and decided to skip a stay in Bermuda and sail straight home instead. He died at Mount Vernon in July 1752 when he was just 34 years old.

The year after Lawrence died George was given his first official mission for the government of Virginia.

As the French and the British each became more and more determined to control the Ohio River valley the French strategy was to build a string of forts along the river. Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia prepared a letter for the French explaining that they were on British territory, asking them to explain why they were there, and ordering them to leave. The 21 year old George Washington was chosen to deliver the letter.

George set out on 30 October 1753. Along the way he picked up Jacob Van Braam to serve as interpreter, Christopher Gist to serve as guide, and five other men to round out the expedition. The group made slow progress in an unusually rainy and snowy winter season but finally reached the Native American settlement called Logstown on 24 November.

George spent some time in discussions with Native American leaders such as the Seneca chief Tanacharrisson, known as the half-king because he owed allegiance to the Iroquois confederation. The mission here was to ensure that the tribal leaders would remain loyal to England and also accompany George on his trip to the French.

The Half-king promised to stand by the English and also to accompany George on his trip. Together they traveled another 70 miles through the snow to Venango where they met the French Captain Joncaire. The French plied the Native Americans with presents and alcohol to see if they could be persuaded to switch sides. They also invited George and his men to a dinner where wine flowed freely and everyone got drunk except for George, who later wrote all that he saw and heard, that might be useful for the Governor, into his journal.

Ultimately, Captain Joncaire refused to read the letter from Governor Dinwiddie so George and his expedition had to journey on to another French fort 15 miles south of Lake Erie.

***

Note:

My biographical study of George Washington was intended for my own education but I thought I would also like to share what I have learned here on my blog. The main sources of information I used were:

First, "George Washington: A Biography" by Washington Irving. I like this one because it was written by one of our early American literary masters and because it was written so long ago that Irving often mentions talking with people who had actually seen George.

Second, "Washington: An abridgement in one volume By Richard Harwell of the seven-volume George Washington" By Douglas Southall Freeman. I wanted the complete seven volume set but that is not yet available on Kindle. Too bad. Still, this abridgement is a great work, packed with information.

Third, "Washington: A Life" By Ron Chernow. This is an excellent modern biography that came out in 2010, helping me to get some of the more recent research missing from the older biographies.

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

How to Think #12: Ferio

The 12th valid syllogism to learn is FERIO.

This syllogism looks like this:
1. No M is a P.
2. Some S's are M's.
3. Therefore, some S's are not P's.

An example using words could look like this:
No one who lies is worthy of respect.
Some police officers lie.
Therefore, some police officers are not worthy of respect.

This is a valid syllogism so if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is a book that should help us identify faulty reasoning so we can correct it:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

But are the premises true?

Look at the first premise. "No one who lies is worthy of respect." Is that really true?

Many people would distinguish "white" lies or "kind" lies from the really bad kind of lies. If someone has been sick for a long time and you try to encourage them by saying "You are looking better today!" even when they really don't, surely you would not be condemned for that kind of lie.

Maybe we could improve that first premise by changing it to "No one who lies under oath to get someone convicted of a crime is worthy of respect."

Now our example becomes:
No one who lies under oath to get someone convicted of a crime is worthy of respect.
Some police officers have lied under oath to get someone convicted of a crime.
Therefore, some police officers are not worthy of respect. 

That seems stronger, doesn't it? What we just did illustrates one of the advantages of using syllogisms. By stating our conclusion and our premises very explicitly in syllogism form we make it easier to analyze our arguments, spot weaknesses, and make them stronger.

***

I believe this is classic work by a genius but I have not read it. Please beat me to it and then send a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.org.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway