Hanging Out With the Drunks on the Couch.

Quick, tell me one thing that is true about Republicans and one thing that is true about Democrats.

Answer: You're wrong.

One of the wonderful traits most of us share is the capability for self-delusion. Combine that with our egos, and many people who are even remotely into politics feel that they can define the standards of a party. That belief is aided by the creation of party platforms, stating the goals and/or beliefs of a party prior to an election.

Okay, that's all well and good. But don't for a moment believe it's definitive. The most accurate way of describing it would be generalized; in a given moment, the majority of people in a party might believe one thing, or another. That is an indication that the party, as a whole, believes in that thing. But it does not mean that every member of the party buys into it.

If you look hard at just about every candidate for office, you'll find something they disagree with the majority of their party about. With some candidates, they disagree with so much that they actually vote more often for the issue stance of the other major party; they usually keep their affiliation either because of political seniority or because the issues that _most_ matter to them fall into their current affiliation.

There's a famous quote: "I didn't leave my party; my party left me." Well, no, it didn't. The fact is that many people continued to hang out at that party, figuratively schmoozing with the drunks on the sofa and noshing on the pretzels, for the remainder of their lives. What happened is that enough of the party's central tenets and principles changed, or at least they way they are interpreted by the majority, and that eventually some people got sick of the changes and went hunting for a different group of pals to hang out with. That's fine; I support that. But don't pretend you didn't leave your party; you just got tired of fighting a losing battle to hold the party to your principles.

At the end of the day, party affiliation is like most forms of art: it's whatever you point to at any one time and claim is art. That is why designations like "Conservative" or "Liberal" can be consistently defined, and "Republican" and "Democrat" can't be.

Here's the point.

If someone puts their faith in any people as representatives of their political philosophy, they're asking to be let down. And that letdown will often drive someone away from a party they most associate with. I've seen it happen over and over again, even to otherwise brilliant individuals.
It's still foolish.

When someone fails to live up to someone's principles, it's not the fault of the principles; it's the fault of the person. And if a lot of trust was invested in that person, they should do one of the hardest things for anyone to do, and honestly admit they were wrong. Then, learn from that mistake and push to elect someone who they think is trustworthy in the next election.

It's far too easy for people to become cynical or jaded. Those attitudes do nothing to further their goals, however, and do everything to further the goals of those opposing them.

ANOTHER THING:

Something expensive the comic people might run across: any trade paperback of Sam and Max, Freelance Police. There were a few of them, and all of them are easy money on ebay. And they're also great silly fun, if you want a few moments taken out of your day to appreciate surrealistic cartooning and witty dialogue.

VS #1: Stem Cells

AM: The rules are simple. Each individiual will be encouraged to present their side of a particular topic. Reasoned debate is sought, not personal attacks. If anyone deviates significantly from the primary topic, the Moderator may step in and stop that line of argument.

Now, to open the floor: what is everyone's position on stem cell research?

BENNY: I'm in favor of stem cell research.

G.: I'm in favor of stem cell research, too.

TED: Same here.

ELLEN: No problem. More stem cell research.

AM: Okay, it sounds like there's pretty solid agreement all across the board. So, what's the debate?

ELLEN: I'm against _embryonic_ stem cell reseach. All the other types of stem cell research... adult, cord blood, amniotic sac stem cells... I'm in favor of all of them.

BENNY: So, you are willing to toss away a potentially valuable avenue of medical research, why? Because you consider a tiny clump of cells which hasn't even developed any organs yet to be a human being?

ELLEN: I consider it human life, yes. Not necessarily a human being, but human life.

BENNY: What about a skin graft? That's human cells, still alive. Should they be preserved too? Are you against all experimentation on living cell tissue, because it's got some sacred aspect to it?

G.: Why do you say it's human life? Until it can live on its own, it's basically parasitic. It might develop into human life, but it's really just a stage between a chunk of matter and a person. I think it's wrong to grant it the same rights as a person.

ELLEN: It isn't wrong! It will develop into a person if it's nurtured and cared for properly... and that's the difference between an embryo and a skin graft, Benny.

G.: And you'd consider the rights of that potential person above the possible huge health benefits to everyone? Do you support putting people in jail?

ELLEN: What does that have to do with anything?

G.: If you're in favor of incarceration, you're basically saying that there are instances where an individual's rights can be abridged to help the greater good. Well, that's all that's being done here, except that the "individual" isn't even a human being yet.

ELLEN: Fine, then bring back my Grandfather.

G.: What?

ELLEN: If you're going to equate the abridgment of rights, fine. If someone reforms, they can get out of jail. Or if evidence rises to prove they were innocent. My Grandfather is dead. Explain to me how you can reverse that abridgement of rights in an equal way. If you can't, your analogy doesn't hold.

G.: But it isn't about the reversal of a position, it's about the position now. One vs. the many.

TED: Bull.

BENNY: What's bull?

TED: It's not about one vs. the many. It's a polticial and money scam.

BENNY: What, you don't think it could help medical research? You know better than thousands of doctors and researchers, worldwide?

TED: Ellen is right, I just don't agree with her reasons.

G.: Then what are your reasons?

TED: Show me the success.

BENNY: It has to be funded to have success!

ELLEN: Besides, they've recently found an alternate way of getting stem cells from the surrounding tissue without actually harming the embryo, and those cells contain almost all of the abilities of embryonic stem cells.

HANK: Ellen, "almost all" isn't the same as "all." Benny, it has been funded! It's been funded for over a decade, with absolutely no positive results. In the same amount of time people have been working with embryonic stem cells, they've been working with other forms of stem cells, as well. Dozens of diseases have been cured. So far, no success has come from embryonic stem cell research.

BENNY: That's because there's not as much money going toward embryonic research, and not enough available lines.

TED: No. There's been plenty of money, just not money from the US government. Dozens of private research groups, companies and universities, have poured millions of dollars into embryonic research. Governments outside the US have given more money. And the best they've seen has been the development of tumors both benign and malignant in the test subjects. I say, if we're going to spend the money, spend it on things that work.

BENNY: Okay, fine, some of the other stem cell cures work... but only for specific individuals. The hope of embryonic stem cells above all others is that they won't be specific to the individual who provided them, that instead they can be administered to all. That will vastly decrease the eventual costs of the cures.

TED: Couldn't the same be done with existing cures, with modifications?

BENNY: No! Look at blood; some people can accept certain types, some others. There are some universal donors and some universal receptors, but still, not everyone can handle every blood.

TED: What about synthetic blood? Isn't it true we've developed synthetic bloods which can substitute for normal blood in certain quantities?

BENNY: But, again, you're looking at cost, and time. It took decades to develop that stuff and it's incredibly expensive. With embryonic stem cells, you wouldn't have to spend all that time and effort.

TED: Okay, fine, but it can still be done. Let the private sector handle it. In the private sector, if something isn't working, and it starts to override the eventual value, they'll shift the money into other research... which is just what's happened. So, instead of dropping all this money pursuing more and bigger tumors, they've shifted to other stem cells and they've actually cure the diseases. Isn't that what this is about, curing sick people?

BENNY: But the government is the only group with the amount of money needed to pursue embryonic properly, because obviously it's had more setbacks than other types.

TED: That's because it hasn't worked!

AM: Okay, wrap time. You've each had a little while. Why don't you summarize your positions? Five sentences or less.

ELLEN: Human life is precious and distinct. I believe in holding human life as special. Religious or not, it is one of the foundations of human morality. Whenever the value of life is diluted, whether through abortion, the death penalty, assisted suicide, or anything else, what we're saying is that individual judgments should trump the inherent value of life. Beyond the morality, I think that also undermines one of the "three unalienable Rights" around which the US government was founded.

G.: Another one of the "three unalienable Rights" is Liberty, and that includes the liberty to live as one wishes, without being subjected to the demands of another. When people like Ellen push their agenda, it holds a significant danger of, by legal extrapolation, undermining the ability of women to have abortions. I would contend that until a being is capable of surviving on its own, independent of a physical host, it should not be accorded the same rights as other members of its species. That especially holds true when the being in question does not even share the same characteristics which identify humanity as being unique: our brains, organs, and systems.

BENNY: Without governments supplying money for embryonic stem cell research, there is little chance that private companies will pursue that avenue of research over more profitable stem cell formats. While it is true that embryonic stem cell research has, to date, been a nearly complete failure, that is not necessarily an indication it will continue to be so in the future. If it is successful, the rewards which will be reaped will be immense. Just as with the lottery, you have to be in it to win it.

TED: This is just another rathole down which to send tax dollars; the money goes out to researchers who push the political ideology of the people sending them cash, and results are never expected. Meanwhile, the politicians get the chance to talk about how much they care, while relying on the fact that most people don't realize just how low the odds are, compared to other forms of stem cell research, for success. But because there's already hundreds of millions of dollars of private money being spent on successful treatments, there's no need for government money there, so politicians can't buy the votes. And that's all this is: politicians buying the votes of the idealistic, the ignorant, and the desperate by dipping into the pockets of the average taxpayer and sending the cash to their friends and cronies.

GCE: Wealth

There is a fundamental law of physics which states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only altered in form. Contrary to the opinions of many, the same is not true for wealth.

A lot of people think it is; after all, one of the most basic concepts is that if you get something, then someone is either giving it to you, or you're taking it from somewhere. That's basic. It's also wrong.

Most wealth is generated internally. Not internal to the country, internal to a person. Because all wealth is is the relative value of things associated to you. That value is a judgment call on every individual's part. When a particular item has value to multiple people at the same time, wealth is generated.

There are a couple of easy examples, here.

First, pink diamonds. For centuries, pink diamonds were virtually worthless. They were considered deeply flawed because of their color, and were sold, when they could be sold, for use by the comparative poor and for use in things like costume jewelry. In the 20th century, people began to realize that the pink diamonds were, in fact, far rarer than the "normal" type. Collectors began to seek them out, and as demand increased, price rose proportionally. They were the same diamonds they'd always been, but now they were incredibly valuable, more so than the normal ones.
Anyone who happened to have a few of these things socked away in a jewelry box developed considerable wealth very quickly, and did so without any transfer of property or resources.

A second example is anything with sentimental value. A knickknack associated with a favorite relative may be worth far, far more to someone than any casual observer would guess. Because it is only valuable to one person, its wealth lies untapped. But introduce it into a family squabble or watch it get stolen or destroyed and you'll see its true value.

All money is is a placeholder for wealth. It's a handy all-around equalizer, because while the price of a handful of crickets may vary from person to person, money can maintain a relatively equal value for everyone.

What all this means, ultimately, is that wealth can be created, wealth can be destroyed, and that a person can, and often does, gain wealth without taking it from anyone else. This is not the exclusive method of gaining wealth; most of us work for a paycheck, after all, and we're just being compensated for our work by others, exchanging services; and we also buy things, exchanging money for goods. But it is an extremely common occurrence.

The misconception that there is only so much wealth available, and it gets transferred around, is at the root of some of the anger many have with the rich. The perception is that because they have significant wealth, that leaves less for everyone else. This isn't true.

There are a lot of factors which go into preventing the accumulation of wealth: bills, taxes, necessities, luck and more. If someone doesn't have it already, they're going to have a tougher time getting significantly more. That's a simple truth. But having a more difficult path is not equivalent to having no path at all.

Is America Ready for a blind albino Jewish President of Japanese descent?

Enough already.

If I hear one more ounce of praise for someone for being the first "blank" to be in the position of "blank"... well, I'm not going to scream, or throw up, or do anything overtly dramatic. But I'll probably want to.

Look, if you're the first black Secretary of State, good for you. The first Hispanic governor of New Mexico? Right on. First female Speaker of the House? More power to you. First black coach of a Super Bowl team? Not as impressive as the other ones, but still, cool enough.

But it doesn't matter.

Sometimes, when the media outlet covering the latest version of this favorite news story doesn't particularly like the person who has ascended to the position, they'll actually get the story right. Most of the time, however, the piece is worked in one of two ways: either it will be a fawning puff piece about the wonderful person who managed to overcome the odds to reach this position, or it will be a questioning item on whether or not America is ready to deal with the implications of this event.

If it will minimize the articles, I'll give the answer to the second one now. YES. Is America ready for a female President? YES. A black President? YES. A hispanic President? A gay President? YES. A one-eyed genetic experiment consisting of human mixed with manatee DNA? YES.

Are there intolerant people among us? Oh, hell yes! Of all creeds and colors. But when final decisions are made, there is one thing which consistently wins out over intolerance in the vast majority of Americans: self-interest. America is ready to elect just about anyone, if the majority of the country believes it's in their self-interest to do so. That means different things to different people: some want a role model for their kids; some want specific programs to be expanded or contracted; some want particular agendas pushed domestically or internationally.

People are more likely to trust those who most resemble themselves. After that, there are a few other factors which tend to elicit trust in one's leadership: height is a common factor, as is (in these times) a lack of facial hair. Posture can be a huge influence. But you can't take the resemblance factor away, and because of that, people who are different from a majority of the constituency will have a harder time gaining the most confidence. But that difference can be overcome at any time if enough people can be convinced that the prospective candidate will be the best one for their personal interests. It'll be harder for a short Jewish woman to get the Presidency, but the possibility remains, and if she gets the majority of the vote, it will be because a majority of Americans felt she was the best candidate for the job.

Now, in terms of ground breaking, it's not a news story either. It really doesn't matter if Condi Rice is the first black female Secretary of State, or Nancy Pelosi is the first female Speaker of the House. It doesn't. Not the tiniest bit.

What matters is twofold: One, that a black woman, any black woman, can become Secretary of State, or that a woman can become Speaker of the House. That is a testament to the value of our Constitution and our culture. While there have been occasional standouts who have pushed their way into a position thought unacheivable... the first one-armed professional baseball player, for example, Pete Gray... unless their performance was so incredible that it inspired people to break established rules or implement new ones, what we should be celebrating is the strength of a system which keeps so many doors open to so many people.
In those rare instances, I'll happily back off my stance. But most people who are the first of their type to do something aren't overcoming anything but inertia. They're simply taking advantage of the steady increase in public perceptions of equality in performance ability. That's attributable to the culture, not the person.

Two, that there is an availability of knowledge and experience to allow the "groundbreakers" in question the competency to gain and hold their position. It wouldn't matter much if the position were open to people, but they were unable to gain the skill sets required to do the job well. In such an instance, the "groundbreaker" would be gaining the spot for all of the wrong reasons, and as such, would likely do a poor job.

I don't want a Baptist lesbian jockey to be my Senator; I want the most competent person to be my Senator. If she happens to be a Baptist lesbian jockey, more power to her.

Friendly Osama's Used Cars

Once again, I've heard the argument presented that our activities have increased terrorist recruitment in the Middle East. It's time to put this argument out of my misery.

The truth of the matter is that we have absolutely no way of knowing.

When we have been avoiding open conflict and focusing instead on diplomacy or tactical retreat, the enemy has said that our actions show our weakness. They say that our evident weakness inspires the potential recruits, and it is thus easier to get new members into their terrorist organizations.

When we have been pursuing open confict, the enemy has said that our presence on Muslim holy land inspires the potential recruits, and it is thus easier to get new members into their terrorist organizations.

Unsurprisingly, the pacifists in this country tend to point to the second argument when they want to make a point, and the aggressors tend to point to the first argument. However, neither side tends to take one thing into account: their source. It's a terrorist leader. You wouldn't buy a used car from this man. You wouldn't even buy a stick of gum. Why are you buying into his criticism of US policy, other than the fact that it bolsters your existing beliefs?

I try to take all of the crap said by terrorist leaders off the table, because I think they're bright enough to play the media/political game. Trusting them on anything runs counter to historical experience.

Here's the real story: no matter what happens, there are going to be some people who are inspired, and some who aren't. When September 11th occurred, some people ran out and joined the military, while some others who had been considering it balked because they'd been looking at it without thinking we'd actually be engaging in combat. Far more joined as a result than declined to do so, but there was not a singular reaction for everyone.

When the Spaniards had their trains bombed, a portion of their populace were frightened into shifting support from a pro-defense to a pro-appeasement candidate. But that was not representative of all of Spain; far larger percentages were already on the side of appeasement, or had their resolve to fight strengthened by the attacks. But if both of those were around 40% of the voting population, the shift of the remaining 20% was enough to drastically alter the election. I have no doubt that many were left cursing the perceived weaklings in their country after the election, just as members of the diplomatic solution front were left relieved, although sad that it had taken the lives of so many to influence their countrymen to what they believed was the best decision.

So, simply put: if we minimize our responses, some will be inspired to fight us. If we attack, some will be inspired to fight us. This is not an either/or proposition. The only question is left in the quantity of people who will be inspired, and that's impossible to gauge outside of a historical context, because each side in the issue will believe that their solution will minimize it while the opposition's solution will maximize it, and we have no trustworthy sources of information about terrorist organizations which are in current operation.

I fall down firmly on the aggression side, and I do this for one basic reason. So far, the historical precedent for militant Islamists to stop fighting and pursue peace is very small. The historical precedent for militant Islamists to stop fighting once they're dead is at 100%. If I know their ranks are going to grow one way or another, and I have no accurate way of determining how much, I prefer to pursue the only option which has been shown to shrink those ranks as well.

QUESTIONS?

Anyone who would like to know my take on a given topic, please, just put the topic in the responses area. I'm approaching the point where the overall basics have been covered, and that will mean delving into specific topics. I might as well hit things people might want to see.

GCE: Checks and Balances

When I was in nuke school, there was an abbreviation the students hated to see on their tests. "GCE", usually written in big red letters, stood for "Gross Conceptual Error." In other words, you not only got your response wrong, but you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of one thing or another while answering.

(All answers in nuke school are done in essay format. They're trying to make certain people actually know what they're doing before they let them work on a nuclear reactor.)

It seems appropriate when dealing with something commonly and heavily misunderstood to designate it as GCE. So, when you see that before a post title, you'll know what it's about.

One of the big mistakes people make is in assuming that the US government is designed around a series of checks and balances. It's a reasonable mistake, because it's taught to children in almost every public and private school. It's included in most history texts and civics texts. And it is fundamentally, conceptually, wrong. Moreover, it's obviously wrong to anyone who bothers to do the most basic thing when it comes to learning about the government: read through the US Constitution.

There are balances devised within the government FOR CERTAIN THINGS. That's the reason for the process by which laws are enacted, for example; rather than put all of the power for the creation of laws in the hands of one branch of Congress, or the Presidency, it requires a back-and-forth between the lawmakers before a law is enacted.

Kind of.

The truth is, if you bother to look over the way the Constitution is written... and all it is, folks, is a list of the rules for the way the country runs... you'll see that certain powers are granted to the Congress and some are granted to the President, and in each case, while the other is free to try to influence the use of those powers, there are significant limits. That's done for a reason.

Harry Truman had a famous plaque which read "The Buck Stops Here." That's because, eventually, no matter how much conversation and discussion is done on any contentious topic, a decision has to be made that cannot be immediately overriden by yet another person or group. For many things, that's the President. In some cases, it can be Congress... such as when they have enough votes to override a Veto, for the creation of laws. One way or another, at the end of the day, final decisions NEED to be made.

Right now, the final decision on most things has shifted from the groups designated in the Constitution, the President and the Congress, to the Federal Judiciary. This is considered dangerous by some, and laudable by others, because they are the only group which are unelected. That fact renders them less vulnerable to public pressures, and that creates concern among groups who feel that the laws of the nation should reflect the viewpoints of the majority, while creating relief in those who feel that the laws of the nation should not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of the majority. In either case, however, don't try to make the case that this is how the federal powers were originally envisioned and delineated. Anyone even mildly conversant with history will blow you out of the water.

Theoretically, there is, ultimately, an absolute system of checks and balances in place, but it doesn't involve the Congress or the President, it involves an aware population. If you hate what your Congressman or President is doing, vote for people who will reverse course. If you hate what a judge is doing, contact your Congressman to have them impeached and removed from office. Hell, if you think there's something missing in the Constitution, try passing an Amendment. The power of an informed electorate is nothing short of amazing in this country. It's stunning how few bother to take advantage of it.

1 vs. 100

There are different ways to classify equality.

This simple truth is at the heart of many conflicts. When two people have radically different views on equality, their views on what constitutes fairness will also be different. People tend to support their own definitions of fairness.

I'm going to illustrate this by using a relatively innocuous example: fast food. Let's use hamburgers vs. hot dogs.

While there are a few fast food restaurants which specialize in hot dogs... Nathan's, Weinerschnitzel's, Stewart's, and a handful of others... they don't compare to the quantity of fast food places which specialize in hamburgers. Without doing a count, I would be unsurprised to learn that any one of the three largest chains: McDonald's, Burger King, or Wendy's, had more venues open than all of the hot dog venues combined.

These, then, would be the most common ways of equating them:

1) They are the same. One is a hot dog, the other is a hamburger, and they are both fast food.

This ignores the relative popularities and availabilities, and compares instead the core of what the items are.

2) The number of (places or quantities sold) are equal up to a certain point, and then after that point there are a greater number of hamburgers sold.

This ignores the core of what the items are, and instead compares the relative strengths of the items.

This would seem to be obvious, but it's been the cause of many, many debates. It's often at the core of liberal and conservative arguments.

The heart of much liberal philosophy lies in protecting against the tyranny of the majority. They focus on the individual. When there is a Wiccan being persecuted, the traditional liberal position is to stand up for them and point out that constitutionally, Wicca is a religion of equal standing with Christianity. When sex ed is being taught in class, the traditional liberal position is to push for G/L/B/T issues to be taught on an equal footing with more common "straight" issues. They are the group which champions, if not minorities in a human basis, at least minority opinions and strives to bring them equality.

The heart of conservative philosophy lies in preserving common bonds. They focus on the community. When one athiest is bothered by the prayer before a football game, the traditional conservative position is to point out that the athiest isn't being forced to pray, and they have no constitutional right not to be offended. When sex ed is being taught in class, the traditional conservative position is to push that G/L/B/T issues be taught only in roughly the same percentages of time that there are percentages of G/L/B/T individuals in the general population.

The difference manifests itself throughout the philosophies. It's only one aspect of what goes into the split between the Republican and Democrat parties, but it is a key aspect. It's also one reason why many people find themselves caught short for identifying wholeheartedly with one side or the other; most people value both individuality and community, and have difficulty determining which holds ultimate sway in their personal lives.

On the plus side, this difference also allows one an insight into those on either side of the aisle who have drifted away from reason or even sanity. The unstable liberal will perceive all majorities as tyrannical, no matter the relative morality of the position. They're the ones who are going to support a serial killer by hunting for reasons he or she was driven to commit the acts, or by pointing out their artistic growth while in prison, or some similar reactions. They will see persecution in nearly everything traditional, and fight against it. The unstable conservative will demand conformity even on issues which do not directly concern them, and fight to have local regulations enacted to reflect every aspect of what they feel are moral or principled guidelines. They are usually, in common terms, "control freaks".

If you've had extensive exposure to either brand of radical, try to remember that they do not adequately represent a rational view of their chosen political philosophy. I recommend either having fun watching them explode, or keeping your distance and avoiding the headaches they'll generate if you're forced to take them seriously.

QUESTIONS?

Anyone who would like to know my take on a given topic, please, just put the topic in the responses area. I'm approaching the point where the overall basics have been covered, and that will mean delving into specific topics. I might as well hit things people might want to see.

ANOTHER THING:

If you're breezing through the horror paperbacks, you should keep an eye out for either of the books published by Philip Straker: Night Lust and Night Bait. These are not great novels. What they are, however, are the first two novels published (under pseudonym) by Edward Lee, one of the masters of over-the-top horror. Some of his other books are also highly collected, but the ones which should be easiest to commit to memory are those by "Philip Straker". If you see them, pick them up and toss them on ebay, or let me know and I'll cover them for $15 each and shipping.

Why We Went Into Iraq

This is far simpler than many want to make it out to be. Let's get rid of some of the lies first:

1. We went in because we thought Saddam had WMDs.

Well, yes, we did think that, as did most other nations. And, in fact, that was borne out, although not to the quantities we thought he possessed. But his wasn't the only regime with WMDs. The US has them, so does Russia, the UK, France, China....

2. We went in to free the people of Iraq.

Nice sentiment. But if it were true, we'd also have acted in some of the many other oppressive dictatorships around the world. Freeing the Iraqis was a nice secondary reason, but not the primary one.

3. We went in for oil.

Obvious bullshit to anyone with more than a couple of brain cells. There is a strong argument to be made that one of the secondary reasons we went in was to eliminate an embargo threat, but this was never a war of aquisition. The best case to be made for this option is that "for oil" means "for the continued availability of oil", but if anyone is actively promoting this argument in anything other than a sound bite, their choice of words is duplicitious.

4. We went in because Bush was pissed that Saddam attempted to assassinate his dad.

I can't even give this credence as a secondary reason. While the assassination plot is documented fact, there is no evidence of it being a significant factor in the decision to enter Iraq. When this option is presented, it's usually just a projection of some people's reactions onto Bush. They're imagining either that he would do what they would do, or that the cariacture of him that they have in their minds would be so vapid as to react like that. Projection is not a substitute for facts or even rational extrapolation.

5. We went in because Saddam was connected to the September 11th attack.

All credible evidence we have found has indicated that Saddam had no connection to September 11th, and even at the time of the invasion, the only piece of evidence which provided a link was very dubious. That wasn't the reason we went in.

6. We wanted to lend the UN resolutions some credibility.

Like many of these, this might have been a secondary motive. But, really, there would need to be a lot more action taken than this one invasion to get any credibility behind the UN forces. The UN is beloved throughout the world, in large part because it rarely takes action against anyone, even if it threatens to do so, while it does serve as a distribution point for money, equipment and services. Anyone can be loved if they continuously give and rarely expect results.

7. We went in because a group Cheney belonged to had identified the removal of Saddam as a key point toward a more favorable geopolitical situation.

And this is supposed to prove... what? That Cheney isn't an idiot? Almost nobody in the world thought that Saddam's Iraq was a stable situation. As was later shown by the BILLIONS of dollars paid under the oil-for-food scandal, a number of other countries had to have key personnel heavily bribed in order to have those countries continue any support for "containment" of Saddam.

By this time, I expect some people are wondering what the real reason we went into Iraq was. And a lot of them are holding fast to one or more of the items above. All of them have failed in the activity mentioned in the other post written today: paying attention to the past.

We went into Iraq because we were afraid. There are those who say it was not a justified fear, and others who think it was. But the fact of the matter is that we had been struck by a major terrorist attack, and we had decided to combat terrorism.

There are those who say we should have focused exclusively on Al Qaida. The fact is, no matter what their opinions are, we did not. And because we did not, we identified those states which were supplying money and aid to major terrorist groups. Iraq was one of them. They were given the opportunity to recant that aid, or we would act. We had excuses: resolutions in the UN, the violation of the cease-fire by Iraq; but those were just that, excuses. The simple fact is that we wanted to deal with all of the major terrorist states, and the only thing in question was our tactics.

In North Korea, our hands are somewhat tied on military action due both to its close assocation with China and its possession of nuclear weapons.

In Iran, the general populace is dissatisfied with the leadership of the country, and at the time of the Iraq invasion, they were extremely dissatisfied. It was assumed that with a little support of the underground, and an example of a democracy in the area, Iran would change due to an internal revolt and we wouldn't need military action.

In Iraq, the decision was made that military action would be the most effective way of getting rid of a state which was sending lots of oil money to terrorist groups, and providing other non-fiscal aid. And we went in. And that's really as complicated as it needs to be.

The Persistence of Memory

Here's a well-known quote: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." It comes from Joseph Goebbels, the man in charge of propaganda for the Nazis, and despite its origins it retains power because of its truth. Goebbels' quote continues to talk about the power of the State, but in that he was short-sighted. In truth, only because the State and the media were the same entity under Hitler was the remainder of his statement accurate. The true power of a lie to gain hold in the minds of the populace does not come from its political leaders, but in the repetition of the lie by the information sources trusted by the people.

But, the media are important. It is impossible for people to gather all, or even any significant amount, of activity in the world around them without news purveyors, and the best of the arts, whether comedy or drama, allow insight into the reactions and lives of people. Moreover, different people, seeing the same event, often recall it in different ways. There is huge value to a simple, dispassionate listing of events free of individual interpretations.

So, as mentioned in a previous post, it's important to find multiple sides of an issue. That works well for contemporary things. But there's something equally important, and that's remembering when and why you found fault with a particular statement or opinion produced by someone in the media... especially a source you trust... because in the future, that error will often be used as a foundation to bolster later statements.

When you catch someone in the media lying, try to set it aside in your mind. If you're like most people, you'll usually fail to remember it later when it comes up again... as pointed out, people's memories are both amazingly huge and consistently flawed... but with any luck there will be a nagging doubt which will cause you to go and check the "facts" again.

The only way to prevent lies from becoming generally accepted as truth is to beat them back not just when they first appear, but when others try to use them in the future. Which is why this is the first post of the day, and a shorter than normal one: because it leads into the second.

Lying down with dawgs

There is always some measure of guilt by association; the questions are whether or not we are willing to admit it, and whether or not it is deserved.

Guilt by association is one of the most common political tactics. Find someone who's done something wrong or unethical, whether it's Giuliani's friend Bernie Kerik or Harry Reid's land deal partners, and and use the associational ties to smear the politician.

Sometimes it's deserved. Sometimes it isn't. And to anyone bothering to pay attention, it's not particularly difficult to determine which is the case in any given situation.

Question number one: Was the person involved in the same thing as their associate?
If you're looking at, say former Senator Toricelli from New Jersey, a donor was jailed for making illegal campaign contributions. To the Senator. Directly. Things like watches and cash.

It doesn't take a great leap of faith to believe that the person receiving the items illegally might be complicit in the unethical behavior.

When the person in question is discovered to have been cheating on their taxes, or taking bribes and hiding the money in their freezer, however, and there's no indication that their friend had any knowledge of the situation, it's completely unfair to tar them with their associate's bad behavior.

Question number two: What was their reaction when the misconduct was revealed?

There's something to be said about not abandoning an old friend when you discover they've done something wrong. But you also have to consider the offense; if I find out a friend of mine littered, I might chastise them for it. If I discover they've been playing cannibal, I'm not going to be hanging out with them anymore.
Try to consider the actual offense, and decide how you'd react if a friend had done that. The best way to judge someone else's reactions is to imagine what your own would be. Try to hold politicians to your own standards; not your idealized standards, but how you really live your life.

That's it. If you're really thinking about it, you might notice that something was left out. Here's why:

1) Don't only go by what is proven in a court of law.

Politicians get away with shit all the time. It shouldn't be true, but it is. If you want to cut through the bull and make sure you don't just jump on every allegation that comes down the pike, you're best off doing what I mentioned in an earlier post, and checking both sides of the aisle on any given subject. If there are two sides, both sides will be presented. If there is merit to the charges, invariably one side will be trumpeting them loudly and the other will be ignoring them or drastically minimizing them. Either way, with just a little time you'll get the full story. And learning the truth is the easiest, best way to counter the spin.

We will control the horizontal

I've never been a fan of movies, or television, as a method for imparting ideas. They're simply too effective. Faced with the combination of visuals and sound, it becomes far too easy to just shut the analytical part of the brain off and accept. I have, in reasoned conversations, had people try to explain to me that something is true because they saw it on a "documentary" such as Loose Change or because they saw a version of such events on an episode of CSI.

What they're missing is that all of those things are scripted and arranged, rehearsed and read. But because the obvious fantasy element is missing, the same people (many of whom are somewhat bright) who would balk at using a scene from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to bolster their argument will readily latch onto an equally scripted and fictitious scene from a more "realistic" show.

There are -writers- creating these shows. They are far more of a collaborative effort than most other forms of media, because beyond the writers, you have actors, directors, cameramen, and others who are integral to the final production, but at the end of the matter what you have is, at best, an impression of reality which is the combined, weighted viewpoint of the people on the film, and at worst, a story which isn't even intended to be realistic, but which is trying to make an important point about reality.
I enjoy that as much as anyone for entertainment, but it's tough for me to divorce the story from the message and examine the message critically. Maybe that's just me, but I sincerely doubt it. As mentioned before, I've encountered too many people who attempt to bolster their arguments by citing things seen on television programs or movies.

There is even a certain scripting and arrangement to news and opinion shows; it isn't nearly as dominant, however. At its core, news has to be factual, and opinion shows need to be based on facts. They can alter the way it's covered by choosing specific words, or by including supporting or contradictory facts, and in a few other ways, but at its core the news can only be slanted, not created out of whole cloth. This is also the case with some documentaries.

Books, on the other hand, or even to a lesser extent purely visual or audial media such as pictures, magazines, radio, and music are easier to step back and analyze. If an argument is raised, or even a complaint, I find it easier to distance myself and look at the point rationally.
One way or another, my reaction is going to be influenced not by subtle background music, or the body language of the people speaking the lines, but only by the content of the lines themselves. Personally, I think that's close to ideal.

When Columnists Attack!

Here's a quick example of stupidity:
...............
In the House, Suddenly Righteous Republicans
By Dana Milbank Thursday, January 4, 2007; Page A02, Washington Post

Thirty-one-year-old Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) is not a large man, standing perhaps 5 feet 3 inches tall in thick soles. But he packed a whole lot of chutzpah when he walked into the House TV gallery yesterday to demand that the new Democratic majority give the new Republican minority all the rights that Republicans had denied Democrats for years.
"The bill we offer today, the minority bill of rights, is crafted based on the exact text that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi submitted in 2004 to then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert," declared McHenry, with 10 Republican colleagues arrayed around him. "We're submitting this minority bill of rights, which will ensure that all sides are protected, that fairness and openness is in fact granted by the new majority."
Omitted from McHenry's plea for fairness was the fact that the GOP had ignored Pelosi's 2004 request -- while routinely engaging in the procedural maneuvers that her plan would have corrected. Was the gentleman from North Carolina asking Democrats to do as he says, not as he did?
"Look, I'm a junior member," young McHenry protested. "I'm not beholden to what former congresses did."
Anne Kornblut of the New York Times asked McHenry if his complaint might come across as whining.
"I'm not whining," he whined.
.............

First, there is the stupidity of McHenry, for answering as he did. Second, there is the stupidity of Milbank, for assuming that his readers weren't paying attention during the election cycle. Third, there is the stupidity of those readers who will accept this version of events, thereby proving Milbank's assumption warranted.

Was the gentleman from North Carolina asking Democrats to do as he days, not as he did?
YES. Why? BECAUSE THEY CAMPAIGNED ON THE FACT THAT THEY WOULD.

The elections were held almost two months ago. One of the many reasons theorized for the Democrat power shift was their promise of changing the method of doing business. McHenry is showing himself to be none too bright, if he's not going to bother bringing up the fact that he's simply asking the Democrats to hold to a nationally disseminated campaign promise. But at least he has the excuse of being on the spot; I cannot believe Milbank, who had covered the entire two-year runup to the election for the primary paper in Washington D.C., didn't know the talking points of both major parties during the election cycle. The most likely answer is that he is writing his column to be intentionally deceptive.

And here's the thing: if the Democrats don't want to revise the rules, I'm in support of them. There are no reasons to do so, other than to keep their campaign pledge and to diminish their ability to get their agenda items passed. It would be honorable to do the first; it would be effective to do the second. They have chosen the second. If they wish to do the bidding of their constituents in terms of passing legislation... which is what they were elected to do... they have made the right call. But they have also made the wrong call, if they wish to do the bidding of their consituents in terms of being honorable. Pelosi and her Congress have had an opportunity, provided by themselves, to make a choice between principle and pragmatism, and they've chosen the latter. That's cool; especially because they've given themselves an out with the wording: if you pay attention, at no point that I'm aware of did they specifically promise to provide those options to Republicans in the event of a Democrat win. Instead, they simply mentioned the options they'd presented, and then spoke about how they'd change the method of doing business if they were elected.
That means that technically, if you were to break down what they said, they provided themselves wiggle room. But their method of presenting it was blatantly deceptive. This is part of what politics is about. I can respect that; just don't insult me by pretending there hasn't been a false implication there, or that the politicians who have used those tactics are suddenly honorable for doing so, or (as Milbank does, by exclusion) that the tactics were never used in the first place.

This was just the beginning of one column, taken as an example because it made me laugh when I read it. There are others out there, every day. Just look around; one of the big topics of discussion today is the proposal of new rules regarding lobbyists. The Left is making a big deal about the fact that they're going to get tough on lobbyist abuses; the Right is making a big deal out of the fact that K Street, where the lobbyists work, is being filled up with Democrat lobbyists right now, in the same sort of massive shift that happened when the Republicans took over. Both sides are accurately pointing out how many in the leadership of both parties were significant beneficiaries of lobbyist money. (Both former Republican leader Tom DeLay and current leader Nancy Pelosi were questioned about violating the previous ethics rules on lobbyist money, for example.) The truth is that the Democrats deserve credit for trying to clean up some of the lobbying abuses. The truth is also that there are obvious loopholes which have been pointed out ahead of time, and those loopholes have so far been ignored. Many Republicans don't want to give them any credit, and many Democrats want to give them much more than deserved. As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

If you don't want to be caught up in all of this petty bullshit, I don't blame you. By the time the next election cycle comes around, this may not even be a bullet point in a list of objectionable or positive actions taken by a given congressperson.

My suggestion is simply this: either you try to tune all of it out until just before an election, and go into it with as open a mind as you can, unpolluted by the constant barrage of attacks on one side or another; or that you pay as much attention as possible, using some of the tactics I've outlined in earlier posts, so you're kept up to speed all along the way. If you only casually follow the news, you're going to be caught up in the current of whatever media outlet you prefer, and you're going to have your opinions shaped by those outlets.