Tim, you're absolutely correct. An ad hominem argument is unacceptable.
And yes, truth is not the preserve of any partisan interest. However, the public interest is best served by the truth. Partisan interests are served by advancing their own agenda regardless of the truth.
Note that my response readily conceded that broadband stimulus was poorly effected.
So what arguments does the linked piece promote? And by inference, which interests? Would you like to parse it for pejorative "trigger words"? Can do. Nested fallacy? Can do. Questionable conclusions stated as fact? Can do.
The whole article represents an all-too-common approach: surrounding a few germs of truth irrational argument. Yes, the GAO had criticisms, justified criticisms: it usually does, and hardly any government program escapes, in Republican or Democratic administrations.
Let's examine one representative statement: (notation added)
"This disregard for the private sector is all too reminiscent of the municipal broadband craze that swept the country earlier this decade. Dozens of local governments hatched plans to build and operate broadband networks or develop broadband infrastructure for wholesale lease to commercial service providers. But as they lacked the expertise and flexibility of the private sector, the results weren’t pretty. Many of the projects were never completed, while others saddled taxpayers with unwelcome debt."
"... disregard for the private sector": Is it? Or has the private sector been underperforming, milking subsidies, and underserving end-users? Could it be the private sector deserves to be "disregarded"?
"... municipal broadband craze.." Oh my, sort of a telecomms madness. Lock your doors, hide your wimmen! Craze? Municipalities, voting democratically and acting in their own interest constitutes a "craze"? And what stimulated these efforts? Unsatisfied demand. Deep dissatisfaction with existing providers, some of whom were collecting billions in taxpayer funds to provide the very service end-users were being denied. Yes, there were failures. What the article fails to state is that there were, and are successes. Local efforts have installed networks providing enormous improvements in throughput and connectivity at prices no existing provider was prepared to offer.
Offer? Hell, the "private sector" took these poor people to court in an effort to stop them. Local efforts were frustrated in every conceivable way: by lobbying, by litigation, and by obstruction - all of which was financed by subscribers themselves: hardly an efficient use of capital that could have been devoted to service or infrastructure upgrades.
You wanna talk anticompetitive? Don't provide service, then use underserved subscriber money to defeat their efforts to bootstrap themselves to something better. No wonder new entrant costs were so high. No wonder so many failed.
This is the logic of the child who murders his parents, then begs the court for mercy because he's an orphan.
---
I've only analyzed a small portion of the partisan propaganda.
As you say, "...the argument stands or falls by itself". I think everybody on this thread wants to see that sort of evaluation. However the underlying premise is an honest, logically acceptable argument: without fallacy, without pejoratives, without triggers, without cherry-picking evidence, and consistent with the all facts.
This type of argument, often characterized as The Big Lie, predominates discussion these days, and is typical of astroturfing interests. They follow a form. It is no more an ad hominem argument to dispute them than it was to dispute Communist arguments because they were Communist. The main difference is that Communist arguments came from an honest difference; they didn't pretend to be anything else than what they were. The linked arguments are dishonest representations of people who pretend to speak for the public, who pretend their arguments are rational, who pretend they are presenting a balanced view. Ostensibly they're objective and rational, actually dishonest, incomplete and illogical with the intent of distorting and perverting the discussion in favor of hidden interests.
BTW, despite your objection they needn't own a telecomm company to play the game: their interest can be ideological and partisan without direct commercial linkage.
My criticism stands without apology. If you wish to see further dissection of the article's partisan fallacies, omissions and errors that can be arranged by PM.
Regards,
Jim |
