If you ever need a reminder as to the uphill battle we're dealing with...
Alexandra Goncalves, Reuters Reporter
She is just doing what everyone does when they are "on the spot" and given, what they might consider, curveballs. She obviosuly isn't considering these kinds of questions in her job...because she is a reporter. Even at the end she asked "Is this live?" which lets us know that she was nervous to begin with.
All people divert foreign feed matter into 1) their vernacular - which means changing terms so they can reference concepts in their mind that they are familiar with, 2) shifting the subject to something like an example of her most associated thoughts on the matter, 3) asking questions for clarification, 4) combining some of these elements in order to confuse the conversation so as to place pressure on the others in conversation or merely to force them to talk more. People on this forum do it all the time (argue over definitions of the sematics) in order to get to an agreement on the definition of something; when both parties are trying to build their argument off of the definition and want it specifically fine tuned for their terminology and sense/reference cohesion.
I have a philosophy professor that cannot think as fast as one of the graduate students and I've noticed that she does this. I don't know what the graduate student is saying, but I know that my professor has a tough time processing what he says quickly and it gives me confidence about my grade in the class. People who tend to be more emotional and are less introspective, hence they think less about their thoughts and think more about the objects of their thoughts which hinders their ability to articulate complex ideas, do this sort of thing as well.
[Thoughts] ------[Objects]
[Metathoughts] -------[Thoughts] --------[Objects]
Also, people like this reporter know that they can make people look foolish by asking these sorts of questions. Not to say that I am disagreeing with him, but c'mon if an adept brings in an initiate and starts grilling them on the text it is only natural for them to make mistakes. And it is only natural to discredit these people in the political world, which I am assuming is what this video is attempting.
At least she's good looking.
I think you defend too much. I would agree with you more if you just left it at "So she's kind of slow, and largely pedestrian. Big deal." (Of course I would disagree that it's nothing to think twice about, but still...at least you would be more accurate.)
I don't think his question was particularly tough or hard to answer at all. And it wasn't just that she took forever to even get to a point where she felt she could give an answer, it's that she never even fully understood at all. Notice the interviewer said the farmers were given subsidies to not farm...as in, they are paid to not produce anything. And even after he repeated his question she continued repeating it back to him as if he was talking about "not being fair" that they get subsidies even in "off years" when they don't produce anything.
Of course this misunderstanding didn't really change the overall premise of his question so he just left it alone and let her attempt an answer, as she was already having enough trouble as it was.
There was nothing "curveball" about the question. And the way I saw it, she asked if it was live because once it was over, she realized how poorly she had done, and what horrible TV her interview would have been. It had nothing to do with her being nervous beforehand. She was just concerned when it was wrapped and had a second to assess her performance...and then felt better when she was informed it wasn't live...meaning it would be edited and "polished" (i.e. she wouldn't look so bad because they would (presumably) take out all her hemming and hawing.)
Finally, you are somewhat correct in your assessment of the interviewer, as it's literally his shtick to use the Socratic Method and show the contradicting beliefs of people in politics and the media. It's surprising you haven't seen him before. Check out his channel. He scored some pretty big interviews back in the day. He got Harry Reid to claim taxes are voluntary.
She did not get his economic question (which is no surprise as she probably didn't have to take any economics in college at all to graduate).
Well, by curveball he's not asking about "what happened" he's asking a more fundamental question about the event. I just don't think she was expecting it. But, yeah she knew right after she was finished that she didn't say anything of substance.
I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. There was nothing about his question that required any knowledge of economics whatsoever.
"Is it morally wrong to initiate physcial force against people who haven't violated anybody's rights?"
I have no idea why you think someone would need an economics class to be able to answer that question. He even prefaces the question by saying "Here's an underlining ethical issue that I thought you might want to consider..."
I'm not sure why you have such an issue with admitting she's a runofthemill dimwit who somehow works as a reporter for a world-renown international news agency.
She is not stupid.
She is only trying to justify an unjustifiable position in her head while trying to answer a question in front of the camera.
Ok maybe she is.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Well, I figured that when he said, and you stressed, that the farmers are paid not to produce, that some understanding of the eocnomics of that was what he, and you, was getting at. She didn't get that and, as you pointed out, she understood it as they are given subsidies even when they don'tproduce which is just not the same as the objective of the subsidy being to not produce.
The ethical arguement was the main part, I didn't miss it or anything. You are just talknig around the things that I am saying. She struggled to get that part and didn't no how to answer; no disagreements here.
My part is the "world-renown" part. I just think of her as the typical human being that tends to comprise tha majority of the world; I'm not disagreeing with the dimwit angle. I just have learned to accept it and deal in the circles of intellect that she and her ilk are not a part of. I go to a top ten school and can tell you that from my perspective of the world here that even the people who excel in school, and thus end up employed with pretty decent jobs, aren't that smart. Hence my comment about needing an economics course (they aren't required anywhere but business and economics departments). I've learned not to revere institutions like that (as I am sure you have as well).
I've encountered kids in the business school (finance) that will rant on and on about "propietary trading programs for international firms conducting foreign direct investment" but that cannot define a derivative. I've met people who are, as undergraduates, already accepted in the law school and that say "like" between every other word in conversation. I have a professor now that is an open PC feminist of the lowesst caliber (accusing everyone of everything - emotional to no end); kids that are going into law are not actually required to take logic or rhetoric. Logic is reserved for philosophy and rhetoric for mass communication and public speaking. Political Science doesn't require logic, rhetoric, history, or economics... Again, I've learned not to revere much.
When things are means tested (not ends tested) the "college educated" group of people gets dumbed down. We've been means testing since the 1950's in Universities. I have to put almost no effort into my Latin classes because the curves are so generous. Same is true for math classes.
Plus, I smoke weed, I can't say that if I was put on the spot, either, after I've come down or in the morning before I am full steam that I would answer questions that I am not expecting with any lucidity. Given she doesn't look like she's in either of those positions (she could be the though).
I'm reading this now. I've pretty much given up on "fighting the good fight." You might as well use black propaganda to push for libertarian positions; deceive, inveigle, and obfuscate. They do it to us. I vote we do it to them.
(The book is awesome, btw. It is brutally honest about what intellignece agencies do even if there are a few typical references to the government's perspective of things. They even mention conspiracy theorsists, in the context of doing scholarly work on the "outside," as, "those who would have us believe in the omniscience or the omnipotence of the discipline's practitioners." (p. 18))