With Which Witch did she Switch?

She switched with the witch with which she switched.




Credit to Bethany for "Pig-Ugly-Woman-Fat-Face."

Upside of a McCain victory

It is still entirely possible that McCain will win the election. If and when that happens, he will be the President of the United States, representing all of us citizens here. Some disagree with his policies, his temperment, or his ridiculous running mate- but let's look on the bright side.

President McCain will face a strong majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress. Maybe a filibuster-proof Senate, and maybe a nearly veto-proof majority in either or both. What an opportunity. A strong Congress in opposition to the Executive. Such a Congress could vigorously delve into the extra-legal behavior of the previous Administration, without causing too much more animus with McCain. He's a reformer, right? Hearings, subpoenas, and a Justice Dept. that will acually enforce the subpoenas. This driving force will likely not occur with a President Obama, the "uniter" that he claims to be will squelch aggressive investigation of past doings.

I think that such a Congress would have a strong interest in limiting the power of the President. First, they could clarify what the purview of the Cabinet Departments is to spend their allocated money out of accordance with what was specified in the budget. That is: Congress could manage the Departments by controlling individual projects. Congress can also eliminate Cabinet positions (or funding for them), something I would love to see.

Finally, such a Congress could impeach a President that breaks the law, even if that President is following the "precedent" established by Bush. Breaking that precedent should be a chief priority, and throwing people in jail is a pretty clear way to write into history what is legal and what is not.

Holding people in Contempt of Congress is another way to enforce the "Will of the People", and arresting them when the Justice Department does not do it is fully the right of Congress. I think a strong sign that Congress means business would be to allocate, say, 10 Million Dollars for the construction of a Capitol Jail, for holding of people in criminal contempt of Congress that are allowed to remain free by an overreaching Executive.

Basically, it will be hard to fix the permanent damage done to the Presidency if

a) the sitting President is in the same party as Congress

b) the sitting President follows the law (as it existed before Bush)

If McCain is President, he could indeed bring Change to Washington. But he will not be the Agent (enactor) of that Change, but rather the Patient (object) of it.

The Presidency is more than the President. Maybe it's best for Obama to lose.

Head of the Day

Greenspan has the best head ever.

Wouldn't it look great on money?  Too bad he's on the outs.

Compare Greenspan's head to this one from "Night of the Living Dead."  

Maybe zombies have a limited shelf life.

Rhetoric has limits.

I left this comment in response to the esteemed Stanley Fish's NYT column, in which he compares Barack Obama's campaign to Jesus's evangelism in Hell.

I know things are pretty morbid around here, but I can't help it.

--------------------------------------------

“…Whom Reason hath equaled, Force hath made Supreme.” [PL1, L248]

Let us not forget that rhetoric can be replaced with violence. The risk of those who are extreme (at either end of the spectrum, if it is linear) is not just their influence over the winner in the White House, but the extent of their unwillingness to be on the losing side of a contest.

As an analyst of rhetoric, Prof. Fish may tend to treat that universe as complete. That may not be indeed realistic.

As a side note, the quote above is Satan complaining about his loss in an assault against Heaven, where he has by implication falsely labeled God the aggressor (and his rhetorical equal). The side which abandons Reason for violence can still blame the other party for the violence.

Let us hope things remain rhetorical, shall we?

Obama Assassination Poll

I have posted a deliberately provocative poll regarding people's estimates on the likelihood of Obama's assassination.  This is in no way meant to imply that I am looking forward to it.  To the contrary, it is my feeling that most people (including myself) truly fear this threat as real, and probably have specific notions as to the nature and urgency of the threat.  The fact that so many people have detailed thoughts but also feel that it is taboo indicated to me that the subject needs addressing.  Sometimes real things are ugly, and sometimes they make us fearful.  Take lynching, for instance- unpunished public humiliation, torture, and execution of citizens by a mob.  This really happened, perpetrated by real people (that likely were not "monsters," but considered by many to be quite ordinary).  We need to really come clean about our fears of the assassination of a popular black president, lest that fear insidiously and unconsciously guide our actions.

So: please vote in the poll, and leave a comment here if you'd like to address this issue.  You can comment even if you don't like the poll and refuse to participate in it.

How to Bully-proof Your Child

This is a super-interesting article about the modern view on bullying. Contrary to what everyone was told 20 years ago about bullying, the current (emerging) view is that the bully is not really at fault. Instead, the one that caves in and reacts to being bullied is really culpable for the potential harm. The premise is that bullying is a pervasive human activity, a form of social play, and the only way to lose at this activity is to not play at all (e.g., get mad, tattle, run away, become physically violent). Note that extensive research shows that bullies generally don't know that they are bullies. Since bullying is everywhere, and occurs without a need for outright malice or corruption of the bully, kids should be taught how to defuse it instead of trying to avoid it or stop it. It goes on to say that "bully free zones" are actually counterproductive and exacerbate the situation, since they put pressure on all the wrong points to modify the behavior.

This is the sort of turn-it-on-its-head thinking that moves things forward. While the article is a little bit fluffy, there is some substantial content.

I think the lesson that the target, rather than the bully, is in control of the situation and the outcome is a very good thing to teach children. In most situations, I think this is probably true. Further, bullying follows you into adulthood, in the form of subtle intimidation at work, bad bosses, competition, etc. Learning to be an agent (and not a target or bystander) in socially adverse situations is the lesson- at least bullies serve some useful purpose.

See WonderTime magazine (which Whitney loves):

http://wondertime.go.com/learning/article/bullyproof-your-child.html

Head of the Day

Yes, it's real.

I think this may be the real Willy Wonka.

George Bush's Death-Bubble

On the subject of my post about enthusiasts, I had more to say and quit for brevity. There is one observation that I wish to append here, however.

It has been said that Bush exists in a bubble, insulated from the public, criticism, and reality. Remember the staffer that claimed that they didn't exist in the "reality-based" world? Others have described his administration as having a siege mentality, acting as though surrounded on all sides by enemies. I contend that neither of these is a likely or apt characterization of the real situation, based on my character analysis of Bush as consummate enthusiast.

First, he does not need a bubble to shield him from criticism, he has his faith and direct connection to the source of his inspiration. He draws directly from the well, and need not barter for his water. If there is any bubble around him, it is built by him and a reflection of his own viewpoint, but probably does not really exacerbate the situation much.

Second, the siege mentality comes up short because besieged cities or positions are necessarily static and unmoving. I would argue that the record shows that his administration has pushed forward quite effectively despite having almost no supporters or political capital to sustain it. They are more politically nimble than anyone could have predicted. Siege? Hardly.

I have a better description. He is surrounded by a phalanx of loyal underlings, and he is as mobile as ever. He can intimidate, ignore, or destroy with his apparatus. He is feared by his political allies and by his enemies that rally to assail him without substantial success. Finally, he has shown that he can spring without warning and rapidly achieve surprise political victory (e.g., the buy out plan).

George Bush is surrounded not by a bubble, but a Death Star.

His vehicle bristles with weaponry outside of its armor. It moves about with invulnerable deliberation, able to carry out its mission however he sees fit.

Also, after the first one was scuttled (mass exodus of advisors, e.g., Karl Rove and company), he built another one that everyone thought was just a skeleton, and no harm to anyone. Ha ha! Let them fear his new "fully operational battle station!"

What does this mean? He has lots of gas (or magical reactor at the bottom of a mysterious shaft, not sure how far to take this analogy) to motor around and cause trouble for the next few months. Unless someone summons the Force to set off a chain reaction, stay tuned for further planet incineration.

Head of the Day

Say it ain't Rhetorical, Joe!

There has been much ado about a character named Joe the Plumber in the past few days, ever since he appeared on the national stage as a verbal cudgel in the hand of John McCain. This is an interesting phenomenon to me, not that an ordinary dude apparently got dragged into the political mud pit, but that this fictional character actually simultaneously exists as a real person named Samuel J. Wurzelbacher.

Do I actually mean that he is known by an alias? No. Mr. Wurzelbacher is a guy that works for a company that ostensibly installs plumbing in Ohio, that happened to ask Barack Obama a question in an exchange that was recorded and posted on You Tube. Joe the Plumber is some guy that can't buy a business because it profits just enough to be exempt from Mr. Obama's proposed tax cuts, and so is being denied living the American Dream. It is the fictional character that is being primarily featured in the news, but I wish to quarrel not with the spinners of this mysterious yarn but those that are desperately trying to unravel it.

There has been a flurry of activity in the news media (I primarily read the NYT and WashingtonPost) about the discrepancies between the fiction and the man. Mr. W. is not and has never been a plumber, in so far as he never apprenticed or was admitted into the trade union of plumbers. He works for a company not licensed to plumb, or to build stuff in Toledo, where it is based. Finally, it turns out, no one can demonstrate how much the company makes or is worth. How do we know this? The plumber's union in Ohio revealed his non-plumberdom (they endorse Obama), and the Times has scoured public records and tried to get people to talk on the record. In the most irritating part of their inquiry, they point out that since he claimed that the company would make just over $250K that it would probably be exempt from tax hiking. So, see, there is no story because we've addressed every talking point about Joe the Plumber. Right?

Wrong.

The media, and unfortunately, Democrats, have adopted the Republican tactic of disintegrating the messenger instead of addressing the issue. "Look, he actually would have gotten a tax cut, so it doesn't count!" Nonsense. What if the business was worth $350,ooo? What if he was an actual licensed plumber (and was allowed to publicly split with his union without reprisal)? Disqualifying this guy's point of view piece by piece may seem like a good debating strategy, but it actually is an infuriating way to avoid addressing the substance of a legitimate criticism of a publicly espoused policy. Furthermore, deconstructing the fiction of Joe the Plumber back into Mr. W. somehow feignedly implies that the analyst doing the deconstruction actually believed in the first place that McCain was trying to be strictly factual and not relating a synthetic anecdote for rhetorical purposes.

So, let me translate a little. Let us imagine that a Democratic Senator poses, rhetorically, as the Devil's Advocate, that there will be people that want to purchase businesses that are just over the line into tax hike land, and so will not be able to afford the purchase. Or if they do, they will hire less people or suffer some other drawback as the result of the policy. Seems legit, right? What is the response? That this is impossible? Hardly. How about "the tax code is graded, so there is no sudden application of any increase or decrease." Better. How about, "you are already successful, so we're helping other guys." This one was tried and called class warfare. Finally, I can imagine some version of, "Well, we're taking those taxes and making health insurance cheaper so you will actually come out ahead, especially if you hire lots of folks." To be clear, Mr. W. did say, in an interview in his driveway, that he was concerned that someone somewhere would be negatively affected by increasing taxes. That was his point, that is the position of the friendly Devil's Advocate above. No one cared to answer it. Attacking the messenger does not diminish the message, only the interpretation of the message. This is a tactic employed by people that don't want others to interpret the message however seems fit to themselves.

Now, I'd like to pose some questions. Is his point, that he might be unable to afford to buy a plumbing business because of tax hiking invalid, because he is not actually a plumber? What if he was a stinking toothless bum claiming to be a plumber? Is a question about educational reform invalid if the person asking it claims to be a teacher and is not? What if they made no claim as to their qualifications, is the question less apt? The question is the question, and the claimed qualification of the asker is largely irrelevant, as questions carry no weight of authority or veracity. I'm disappointed that the HighRoad People stooped to this tactic.

The reason they stooped was not, I believe, because they were afraid of the message. It is that they were combating the connection of the public with the poor underdog guy that is trying to make ends meet. This big sob story is a fiction, and so it isn't fair to expect millions of people to print T-shirts claiming that he could be employing plumbers right now. Attacking the fictional character's link to the flesh-and-blood guy deflates the esprit de corps that is making working class tools rally to his cause, and that is the reason Democrats and the media are exposing the discrepancies. Nevertheless, people that are not duped by invented characters and their tribulations lose, since we are denied the analysis of the underlying criticism.

By the way, it is actually a big deal to claim to be a plumber and not be one. Finishing an apprenticeship is like earning an accredited degree, and practicing in the union is like being hired contingent on earning a degree. If an engineer was hired, and it was found out they lied and never finished school, they would be fired in an instant. They would be disgraced. This guy, apparently, claimed to have these credentials on his Facebook page. So, I'd say this is his reward, even if those providing it had other reasons for their actions, and even if those reasons were lame.

I can't believe that I rhetorically posed a hypothetical rhetorical question.

What is an Enthusiast?

What is an "enthusiast", and just why is this an interesting question to ask? Now, the Oxford English Dictionary mostly gives the now archaic definition, relating to religious rapture or possession by a god or demon. Not terribly helpful in a literal sense. I read once that the legal definition of an enthusiast is (to paraphrase) "one that requires no proof for their beliefs, and when presented with evidence contradicting their beliefs will not alter them." Religious fanatics clearly still qualify for the latter (as they receive their insight directly from God). However, the legal view is instructive. Trials are about seeking the truth, and juries are supposed to be truth detectors. Everyone in court knows that people lie and that everyone has a point of view. The key is, can a person be relied upon to provide accurate or pseudo-objective data? The answer is, enthusiasts cannot be trusted to provide anything other than their foregone conclusion, even if pesky details (like fact) interfere. This can be grounds for throwing out their testimony. In other words, no one can rely on an enthusiast to tell the truth, not even other enthusiasts that agree with them.

Why do I bring this up now? First of all, it must be pretty clear that I am not a fan of enthusiasm (of the denotative sort above). Enthusiasts are the enemy of analysis, discovery, and just about anything interesting. The squelch inquiry, and have no limit to their ability to argue, debate, nit pick, bicker, and generally make their point of view seem important. However, I will go a step further. Enthusiasm is dangerous. I believe that the "Red Team-Blue Team" mentality that pervades current politics is based in some respect on this idea. People filter political information and only hear that which reinforces their "gut" feelings. People can't trust their neighbors to not hate them for disagreeing about politics or policy. People feel that our country is full of millions and millions of people that are out to get them. This is incredibly destructive to our society- in fact it is untenable.

There is, however, another danger posed to our society by enthusiasts. Elected representatives that are enthusiasts may represent their direct ideological relations at the exclusion of all others. Communication with dissenters is a matter of evangelism (if you need their help) or is a waste of time (if you don't need them), since dedicated enthusiasts can't believe the word of the uninitiated. Facts cannot stand up to their interpretation. In essence, their ability to learn, analyze, process, compromise, negotiate, doubt, or hesitate is severely limited- likely rendering them essentially unfit to serve in a public capacity. That's right, I said that they can't be trusted, and they are incompetent to serve in public office.

Now, let me get specific about who this is aimed at, if you haven't already noticed. George W Bush is an avowed enthusiast, claiming to take his inspiration directly from the Almighty (going back to the original definition of it, which was used to execute people during the Reformation), and approaching public relations as psychological warfare (according to one General with decades of intelligence experience that was a paid consultant for his PR effort). His inability to adapt, coordinate, negotiate, or invent is well documented, and has been unfortunate. However I do not want to pin all of this on him. He is in office because people voted for him. Lots of them. I believe he is the product of a machine- the modern Conservative Movement, which is driven and drives enthusiasm above all else. So long as a candidate promises to adhere to the holy tenets of the movement, they are acceptable (and the less they invent and analyze the better). Why else is belief in creationism held aloft like a badge of honor, only in conservative circles? Belief in eliminating taxes under all circumstances? Why is it so important that they have such strong convictions about these ideas, and wear them on their sleeve? Because it is a movement designed to harness the raw energy of enthusiasm, that's why. Now, candidates can rise to the highest office merely by appearing to espouse membership in the club, even if they are nearly devoid of qualifications.

This brings me to the beginning and the end of my point. First the beginning. The son of the now dead founder of the conservative magazine National Review recently was fired/quit his job as an Op/Ed contributor after he posted an endorsement of Obama on a blog. He claimed that the work environment subsequently became untenable, and he said it was unfortunate that reasoned analysis was so anathema to the magazine, regardless of whether its result agreed with the sentiments typical of NR. Finally, he said of his father, that conservatism used to be about adherence to certain concepts and goals, regardless of their vehicle. His father supported several prominent Democrats for national office. In other words, his father was not an enthusiast, but an analyst. All of the intellectual capacity of the Conservative movement has been spent, and now it is efficiently producing pure, ideal products for national office such as Sarah Palin, Enthusiast in Chief. This is the end of my point. That lady is pure danger, for all the reasons I have given here. If she became President, she would feel no restriction to her authority (given by God, to her, personally). She has used the tools of government for her own personal gain (punishing a dufus ex-in-law), and has said (if speech is what you call it) that our Constitution gives great leniency for the exercise of Executive power. Know this, she does not trust or care about anyone not allied with her, and cannot be trusted to abide by the conventions or traditions of the past. As a perfect product of the Conservative movement, she is not effectively from our country, but sees (or at least portrays) herself as from the red half (an imaginary distinction).

This may sound like the rant of an equally enthusiastic "Liberal Democrat," but I ensure you that I am neither an enthusiast nor a Liberal or Democrat. I am astonished by the ability of self-described "progressives" to fall into these same cognitive pitfalls, though at least being a Progressive does not involve disdain for objective analysis. I despise enthusiasm because of its corrosive effect on society and people individually. Hate and fear shut down critical thinking, and enthusiasm promotes and sows hate and fear. Let us all please, please, try to hear and not judge, contemplate and not condemn, and live comfortably in disagreement. This is not a liberal or elitist idea.

And if you disagree, and believe that enthusiasm is great, and that Jesus rode dinosaurs, you'll love to order a "Palin for Generalissimo" campaign button or bumper sticker.

Why do people vote?

Why does anyone vote? Seriously. I'm not sure that most people sit themselves down and really know why they are voting. If you ask, I'll bet that you'll get some form of the answer "It's my duty" or "It's my right", or perhaps "I never vote- it's rigged anyway." This is a dodge- merely exercising one's liberty is not a reasonable excuse when there are potentially sobering consequences as a result. For instance, I could go horseback riding on an untrained horse, after omitting to the handler that I have insufficient experience to control such a horse, merely because it's my right. Or, I could buy the horse, and owning it, I could do whatever I wanted with it, even and including getting trampled into a red pulpy welcome mat. Arbitrary exercise of liberty inherently comes at the cost of inattention to consequence. So why vote? It's clear to me that no one should vote without a compelling reason as to why they should allow themselves to do it. Further, having a good reason or rationalization, one should only vote based on their analysis of the issues at hand. Yes, that means researching.

The following is a list of voting motivations that should cause self-disqualification:
1) Voting for "someone like me"
2) Voting for "the one I like"
3) Voting for "the one my neighbor/boss/wife likes"
4) Voting against anyone
5) Voting for "the one that will give me stuff/money"
6) Voting for "the one that will finally give so and so what they deserve"
7) Voting "the same way as last time"

In Political Science 101, they teach that there is no real reason why a person should vote, as their effect is statistically insignificant- in the same way that a single pledge to NPR can't really effect the outcome of a pledge drive. Why not just coast through and let the other chumps foot the bill while you listen in for free? They tell you in that class that "Duty" makes up the difference, but this is crap. When did anyone feel the duty to study and understand the activity of the government instead of just browsing the news and cheerleading for "their side"? Duty is dead- most people just want to be on the winning team. Those people should not vote.

There is a historical analogy to this thesis. The Puritans in Massachusetts Colony were very strict in the practice of religion, and controlled and restricted it using the state. If a member of a church wanted to take Communion (also called The Eucharist-- a thing done every week in many modern churches), that person had to APPLY to do it. This is a thing that is said to be given explicitly from God to the People for their use and salvation, but the church elders exerted gatekeeping authority over it. The applicants were interviewed extensively, in a process almost like a judicial confirmation hearing. Why? To make sure the applicant was sufficiently spiritually ready to eat the body and blood of God. A person might do this a handful of times in their life. The colony, set up as a sanctuary for religious refugees, took this ceremony so seriously as to require individuals to prove that they were absolutely committed to it.

Our country is not, exactly, a theocracy. We are certainly not governed by the religiously pious, and commanded to pray this or that way. We do not have morality squads. We do not have honor killings. However, the reverence in this country for the "Founding Fathers" and The Constitution in its original and current forms is almost one of religious devotion, which lends some aptitude to the analogy between modern politics and the Massachusetts theocracy of the 17th century. If one really loves the concept of Liberty and the Constitution that serves to enshrine and defend it, shouldn't one then really mentally and (gasp) spiritually prepare oneself to exercise their power over it? Shouldn't we be concerned with the unintended consequences of that exercise, especially if in apparently acting in selfless "Duty" we are contributing to the abrogation, restriction, or confiscation of another's Life, Liberty, or Property?

Please, consider not voting. I'm not urging anyone not to vote-- but merely to authentically consider passing it up. Only when you are willing to not vote, will you really know why you really are casting that ballot in November.