On the apparent “politicalness” of the polygyny ban, President Woodruff’s vision (which is scriptural, at the back of the D&C) is pretty clear (I think) that the Lord was taking political issues into consideration. Not trying to open up a can of worms, just throwing about half a cent in.

1. I agree that people often employ hyperbolic tropes as a rhetorical tool. Analogy can be an excellent means of communicating complex ideas quickly and an effective way to make rational arguments. However, it can also be an extremely effective instrument of demagoguery, where it is used not to make a rational argument but to produce an irrational, emotional response in the audience. Whether hyperbolic metaphor constitutes a rational argument or a demagogue’s propaganda probably depends a deal on the context and the audience as well as the intent.

The quality of the comparison is also influential. Usually metaphors and similes compare two seemingly dissimilar entities. If the Tertium comparationis , or quality that the two seemingly dissimilar things share, is too broad in scope or too exaggerated then the trope is in danger of losing its effectiveness as a rational argument. Does the exaggeration illuminate an aspect of the subject and increase understanding, or does it mask it behind the cultural baggage of the comparison and overwhelm understanding with emotional association?

If the hyperbole exceeds a certain degree then the comparison may become recognizable as exaggeration or irony, depending of course on the experience and understanding of the audience. But if the hyperbole is not obvious enough for the audience then it loses much of its power to illuminate.

Additionally, the hyperbole of idiomatic expressions like “avoid like the plague,” “rape the land,” and comparisons to the devil is mitigated by cliché and time. They were likely a great deal more shocking at first, but have ameliorated to an extent.

I feel that, while there may be legitimate ways to make hyperbolic comparisons to Hitler, most of the time the comparisons represent demagoguery rather than rational argument. When they are intended as rational arguments, they often fail because of context, the audience, or the delivery and tend to mask and overwhelm rather than illuminate and instruct. If the intent of comparing Bush to Hilter is to illuminate the problems with Bush’s policies, then it invariably fails. As an act of demagoguery, though, it is very effective.

Frankly, I think those who want to make hyperbolic analogies to previous world leaders in order to illuminate what they feel is wrong with the Bush Administration should consider King Leopold II of Belgium . Even though I disagree with the comparison, I do not think that it suffers from the same problems that comparisons to Hitler do and it performs, in my opinion, more as a rational argument, even if a hyperbolic one, and less as demagoguery.

2. I think that you are right to a certain extent. From a pure policy point of view you are right. However, I think that people look at praise differently than they do criticism. In my experience, people more easily identify and dismiss over-the-top praise than they do over-the-top criticism. Fair or not, in most contexts, excessive criticism will always be curtailed and punished more readily than excessive praise. Damaging another’s reputation through exaggeration is generally considered worse than building another’s reputation through exaggeration. We have laws against defamation, but I am not aware of laws specifically against famation (to coin a term). Culturally it is difficult to recover reputation once lost (whether lost justly or unjustly) and it is difficult to maintain a good reputation. The effects of a lost reputation are far reaching and long lasting. That is, perhaps, the reason why we view exaggerated criticism as worse than exaggerated praise. This cultural aspect will probably always influence situations like that in colorado. The distance between the viewpoint and the “mainstream” viewpoint will also be an influence, regardless of any policy of viewpoint affirmative action.

Heavens! I have become such an insufferable pedant!

In any case, the whole concept of public schooling is a constitutional nightmare. I agree with David Bernstein’s view :

An important background assumption is that the very existence of public schools means that the government will to some degree be inculcating values into minor students. Simply by choosing curriculum, textbooks, and engaging in other functions inherent in the education process, the government will inevitably be making value-laden choices that will dictate what students learn about various social, moral, and political issues…. It is hard to disagree with Redish’s conclusion that since public schools will inevitably inculcate values, the government has a right to ensure that the teachers it employs are “with the program.” But perhaps one lesson of the McCarthy era controversy over employment of Communist public school teachers is that government-run schools create inherent First Amendment problems. Any solution that leaves the government in charge of dictating curriculum, much less directly teaching values, seems second-best from a First Amendment perspective given that, as Redish acknowledges, “the public school educational system is an authoritarian operation.” The government’s subsidy of certain points of views by teaching them in public schools serves as the equivalent of an implicit tax on competing perspectives, a method for government to get around the prohibition on directly taxing ideas that the government wishes to discourage. To preserve a fair, non-statist, marketplace of ideas, the government, if it must fund education, should simply provide vouchers and let parents decide which values they wish their children to be exposed to. Redish argues that “there is little doubt that a democratic society cannot function effectively absent an effective system of public education,” but he does not explain why such a system must be run by, as opposed to simply funded by, the government.

1. It’s common in rhetoric to use hyperbole in metaphors. We avoid things like the plague, we rape the earth, etc. Does someone have to be literally just like Hitler to be compared to Hitler? Perhaps in a secondary school context, students aren’t advanced enough to understand metaphors, or maybe Hitler is just so bad that no one should be compared to him (although that would also rule out a number of common phrases using “the devil”).

2. Would the school have suspended the teacher if he had compared President Bush to – pardon me – Jesus? If the issue is really a failure to present opposing viewpoints, shouldn’t excessive praise be just as punishable as inappropriate (and I completely agree that this was inappropriate) criticism?

I suspect (with no evidence, obviously) that such a comparison would have caused much less ruckus, and that’s because I think that even if “failure to present opposing viewpoints” is the issue, ideology was the catalyst.

http://www.ratemyteachers.com/schools/colorado/aurora/overland_high_school/jay__bennish http://www.ratemyteachers.com/schools/colorado/aurora/overland_high_school/jay__bennish/parent_ratings