Evidence of Moose Brain Damage

Why so many minds think alike - CNN.com

I often find myself in the "opposition position" -- politically, in meetings, in discussions, etc.. In fact, I feel more uncomfortable in the majority. When 80% of the people were in favor of the Iraq war, I was reasonably certain that the vast majority of people didn't really know what they were "in favor of". The prior two "quick low casualty wars" ... Iraq in '90 and Afghanistan in '01 (although that wasn't REALLY over, most people thought of it as such) had led them to believe that "modern war was easy", which was of course a false belief that was never going to last.

BO at least lets me be comfortable again. It looks like 80% of the folks think "he is great" although it would be impossible to tell from what he has said / done so far to really have any clue of what kind of President he will be other than probably "smooth". I think that people especially like to be in in favor of something that is viewed as "positive but undefined"--it lets them feel good and think less. It is also really fun for 80% of people to be in agreement on being AGAINST something that is "negative but undefined" -- as in George Bush.  Many of them REALLY don't like it when one of them makes a statement that they are CERTAIN that "everyone will agree with", and some big bald guy is willing to stand up for of all people, BUSH! and they don't really have any answer to "why they hate him" -- they were just told to, and figure that everyone either does as well, or would shut up and follow the crowd like evolution demands.


So, maybe the areas of my brain that would make me want to turn with the herd are damaged.

One reason behind conformity is that, in terms of human evolution, going against the group is not beneficial to survival, Berns said. There is a tremendous survival advantage to being in a community, he said.

"Our brains are exquisitely tuned to what other people think about us, aligning our judgments to fit in with the group," Berns said.

It might also be possible that being rather large with a loud voice, some part of my brain has figured out that my ability to "blend in" with the herd is "less than optimal", so I had better be able to operate without or against the herd. It turns out that in "verbal combat" (or even physical), the herd has a hard time doing a "group attack" -- one of the many herd mentality weaknesses.

My guess though is that most of the people that know me would be on the "brain damaged" viewpoint, and there is no way for me to disprove that one.

Poor BO

Abraham Lincoln may well have had it easier -- Newsday.com

Interesting that poor BO has it tougher than Lincoln isn't it? When did this all happen? Reagan was handed an economy worse than today's by any measure, a world with a rising and more aggressive USSR and open revolt from European allies. Did you read any articles of how he had a harder task than Lincoln?

Bush was handed a post internet bubble crashed stock market and economy in recession. The Stark had been attacked in Yemen during the fall, and of course we didn't know what would happen 8 months later. Was the country more divided then? The election was closer, and margins in the house and the senate were closer -- in fact in a couple months Jim Jeffords would tip the balance in the Senate to the Democrats. The MSM certainly was going to do everything they could do to make it as tough as they could -- Bush was "not elected", he was "appointed", he would be a one-term President, the slide of the Senate to the Democrats that spring was heralded as "things to come". I don't recall any comparisons to Lincoln level (or beyond) difficulty at that point.

It is easy to understand the emotion of a Cumo. He "believes". I had some of those same emotions in 1981, although I wasn't so concerned about how Reagan's task compared to Lincoln. I wanted to believe that the "malaise" was wrong, America was a great nation with a great future that having just got out of college in '78, there was a bright future for me and the rest of the people of this country. Reagan delivered, but not because of what **HE** said he would do -- but rather because of what he ENABLED me and millions better than me to accomplish  by letting the creative market that is the USA flourish.

Presidents are leaders, and leaders "enable" -- Lincoln didn't win the civil war; more than any single person, Grant did. Lincoln futzed around with George McClellan, Ambrose Burnside, Joeseph Hooker, George Meade and finally Grant. It took Lincoln a long time to get to his "Surge strategist". The Democrats then had exactly the same patience and perspective that they have had with Bush--they wanted Lincoln out of office and wanted the war over, NOW -- damn the consequences! It is awfully funny to see Democrats idolize Lincoln actually. Being a Democrat is about complaining loudly, blaming others, and indicating that "someone else ought to fix the problems". Being a Republican is about "lead, follow, or get out of the way".

So will BO be a surprise and somehow figure out how to get out of the way and let America shine? I don't think that is what his supporters are looking for -- they expect a "saviour", and the Jews were even unhappy with the only real Saviour that the world has ever had. I have no idea of what BO will bring us -- I would LOVE it if he could bring us a continuation of the success that we have largely seen from Reagan on, but my faith is not great.

My guess is that what we are going to get is something akin to 1930-53, and 1965-1983 -- periods of loss, stagnation, discontent, violence, war (serious war, 10's or 100's of K dead, not a few thousand) and the sense that "America's time is over". The GOVENMENTS time is ALWAYS over -- but if we return to the ideals of the American founders and free the market, it can be "Morning in America" anytime we want it.

I certainly HOPE that I'm wrong, but if I'm wrong, it won't be because of BO, it will be because of "We The People" as it always is -- and BO learning to be an ENABLER rather than a supposed savior. He is an intelligent guy, I pray that is a lesson he can learn.

BO: "America will endure"

WOW, BO thinks that America will ENDURE?? ... or I guess he only HOPES it will endure! How the mighty have fallen. When Reagan was elected he was telling us that the PEOPLE could PROSPER, and we did! Things looked MUCH worse when Reagan took office than they do now -- unemployment, inflation, and "the malaise" that "our best years were behind us". I have the sad feeling that 4 or 8 years from now, we may have all those kinds of thoughts again, BUT, I think I have more confidence than BO that we will "endure" whatever we have to to get through in the coming 4-8 years.

Eventually, there will be "hope", but it won't come from the government -- it will come from where it ALWAYS comes from ... the God of the universe by way of THE PEOPLE!

Obama, at the Lincoln: "But despite all of this - despite the enormity of the task that lies ahead - I stand here today as hopeful as ever that the United States of America will endure - that the dream of our founders will live on in our time."

BO's RAT

Renew America Together

Am I against service to our fellow man? Nope, in fact, study after study shows that conservatives both do more and give more than their liberal counterparts. Like most activities, liberals expect "someone else to do it" -- so they complain a lot but do much less.

My point here is how much derision has every conservative program of this sort received over the past few decades? Nancy Reagan with "Just Say NO" (to drugs), Bush Sr with "Thousand Points of Light", W's "Compassionate Conservatism and Faith Based Initiatives". Every Republican program to be brought out is the subject of laughter, derision, and 100% negative press from the MSM.

Now BO has a program whose intials are "Rat" and THIS the MSM takes seriously? Please explain to me again how the MSM is unbiased!

BO and Lincoln

Power Line - The pre-inaugural MSM -- more childish than partisan

Tom Brokow apparently has Alzheimers -- losing the New Hampshire primary and coming back is "similar" to what Lincoln dealt with in the civil war? This is insanity pure and simple, and especially insanity since both W and Slick Willie lost the New Hampshire primary and came back to win the Presidency -- and I don't recall anyone making the claim that was "Lincolnesque"!

Cuomo claims that the current problems are MORE profound than what Lincoln faced? More insanity. I think PL is giving the MSM a pass here -- childish, partisan, delusional, incompetent ... it seems to me that anyone that gives the MSM even a wisp of credibility after this debacle is utterly suspending any hints of connection to reality. Can they be trusted to know what day it is? I'm no longer certain.

Genuine BO Sunbeam

I think this is a little too "down to earth" for the great BO, shouldn't it be a Moonbeam? One has to be excited about this President. Two years ago, the Democrats took over congress promising "Change", and they have really delivered! Now we have BO yet again promising "Change", but this time with the important addition of "Hope" and "Yes we can".

With that kind of leadership, at least we don't have to worry about the campaign promises being fulfilled! It is REALLY good he didn't promise to balance the budget!

Krauthammer, Bush Exit

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Exit Bush, Shoes Flying

Good article by Charles -- he touches on how News Speak is already deciding that the existing Bush policies are just fine if BO wants to follow them.

Cheney Evil, Bush Stupid, Palin a Bimbo

When up is down, &c. by Jay Nordlinger on National Review Online

The MSM is powerful. If they say something often enough and only report stories that fit what people want to believe, then eventually, for the vast majority of the sheep, those stories become true.

If one reports record high temperatures, but hardly mentions the cold temps, pretty soon the sheep think it is getting warmer -- especially if you tell them to think that and also tell them that only a fool would deny that it was getting warmer. It is natural for people to want to think of themselves as "smart", and especially if one can be both smart and popular.

Torture OK For BO

Obama's Cheney Dilemma | Newsweek Politics: The Obama Presidency | Newsweek.com

One has to love the "consistency of the left"--If a Republican does it, it is bad, the only question is if they can jail him for it. If a Democrat does it? Maybe a Nobel prize is in order!

So after thousands of articles 10s or hundreds of books, and all sorts of hand wringing about the HORROR of the Bush/Cheney "Dark Side" of "trampling on the Constitution", "Destroying the Image of America through torture", etc, etc. we have ... DRUM ROLL PLEASE!!! Well, "on further review", maybe it was really HOW they did it -- perhaps BO ought do the same thing, only this time the MSM promises to not make any noise about it. In fact, maybe they will even applaud it! Sweet!

Sorta reminds me of Campaign Finance, Tax Cuts, Gitmo and Deficit spending.

Republicans spending more on campaigns? Money is a BIG problem. BO completely goes around all the campaign finance laws and spends who has any ideas how much more than ever before? GREAT!!! WONDERFUL!!! He is especially great because he can raise a lot of money!

Bush cuts taxes? Horrible, irresponsible, only helps the wealthy, etc. BO maintains Bush tax cuts he promised to rescind on day 1, adds a whole bunch of his own? SUPER! BRILLIANT!!!

Gitmo--Horrible place where innocents are locked up. BO promises day 1 fix! Ooops ... not day 1. Maybe not first 100 days ... no date specified. Those folks are DANGEROUS now, what a surprise!!! Is this a problem? Nope, BO is a great man, we TRUST HIM!

Deficit spending? Gee, Bush and the Republican congress had 100s of Billions in Deficits each year ... broke 500 once. HORRIBLE, IRRESPONSIBLE, IMMORAL. Dems take over congress in 2006 -- BO shows up, Now we have projected deficits over a TRILLION as far as the eye can see? Problem? Nope -- DEFICITS DON'T MATTER, they ought to be BIGGER! They are INVESTMENTS!!!

The MSM IS consistent! They consistently oppose Republicans and support Democrats!

Rove On Transition

Karl Rove: Welcome to the White House, Barack Obama - WSJ.com

Karl does a good job of covering some of the issues to date in the "perfect BO transition". He mentions David Axlerod, the BO equivalent of Rove, and also an advisor to IL Governor Blagojevich. One might notice a SLIGHT difference in the way that the MSM treats Axlerod as compared to Rove -- guess we will just have to watch.

Anyway, BO gets to "make it happen" now. Ought to be really easy for such a great man.

Minnesotans For Global Warming

Since the high here today is due to be -7, all the schools are closed and the papers are talking about the coldest temps we have seen in 10 years, it seemed like a good day to say something about Global Warming. I think we can all agree that temperatures are either warming, cooling, or staying the same. It doesn't appear to be an ice age (although in MN today, we might not ALL agree with that), so other than Young Earth Creationists, that would mean that we are in an inter-glacial period -- they tend to run 10-20K years, and we have been in one for over 10K years, so at some point here, cooling is likely (like in the next few thousand years).

The last time we slipped into an ice age (20K+ years ago), the scientists were not gathering as much data, so we are a little imprecise on exactly how that happens. Does it warm first, then cool? Does it slowly cool? (like over a few thousand years), does it drop like a rock to the deep freeze? I'd say the scientific answer to that one is "we don't know". Now will humans cause the planet to warm "artificially" (interestingly, many scientists would consider us a product and PART of nature) ? If we do, we may head off 5K thick sheets of ice covering this part of the US, and I know Al Gore would find that to be a tragedy.

Might the planet be warming? Sure. Might it be caused by humans? Sure. How about caused by the Sun? I bet it could be that too. Some other sort of cycle that we don't understand (natural carbon release, water vapor ratios, methane, dust, etc) ? It seems impossible to believe that our scientists have ruled out "all other options" -- although it is never hard to believe that some group of politicians and the MSM may have done so.

I personally suspect that much like the stock market, there are lots of jumps and jags in larger scale trends that can really give folks a "head fake" if data from decades or even centuries is focused on rather than the longer term trends of millennea. Much as the market may go up for a few weeks, months, or even year in the midst of a decade long bear market, the temperatures can go up and down in shorter periods and the long term trend is hard to discern.

World Not Loving BO?

Power Line - The Honeymoon: Still Over!

How surprising! It seems that many of our enemies have switched seamlessly from defacing pictures of Bush to defacing pictures of BO. I thought the media story was "people just hate Bush, not the US"? Guess they must have been mistaken -- how surprising!

Left Getting Worried About BO

Obama Should Act Like He Won - WSJ.com

The lefties expect BO to DELIVER -- not be trying to get along with anyone else. They knew BOs history, which the MSM tried to hide from everyone, and when he said things that sounded centrist like "I'm not in favor of gay marriage", or "I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd ammendment", etc, they (as did I) assumed that he was lying. Now they are starting to wonder.

I think a major part of the current uncertainly is just that. Who IS the real BO? We elected a buy with minimal history, but all of it that was avaialable would indicate that he would be the furthest left President ever -- anyone willing to listen assumed that the REAL BO, based on his books, positions held, former positions, etc really felt that red-staters were "bitterly clinging to guns and religion", and that he was going to "spread the wealth around" ... at least, and maybe then some.

It seems way too early to tell to me -- I still really suspect that HE wants to look "moderate", but he is willing to let Harry and Nancy drive the far left agenda so he can be re-elected by a wide margin no matter what happens. If some parts of the agenda are a disaster, he can smoothly blame congress, and all the parts that work will have been his all along.

It is interesting how Franks completely fails to realize that Bush was every bit as much a "tri-angulator" as Clinton -- Perscription Drug Benefit, Sarbannes Oxley, McCain-Finegold Campaing Finance (Republican unilateral disarmament) and attempted immigration reform -- all very centrist to left items, all of which he paid a huge political price with his base for.

As I've often argued, for someone of the LEFT, such triangulation is extremely workable -- other than a few really true loonies like Franks, most Democtrats won't even complain because they realize that POWER is what they really want, and if it has to cost them something in "purism", so be it. Republicans on the other hand are suspicious of government power in the first place, so they have a very hard time with any sort of triangulation -- they have generally been in the wilderness since the '30s, so when they get just a whiff of being "in charge" they expect there to be all sorts of movement to their side -- lower taxes, less programs, more freedom, etc right away -- and worse, since they tend to have a lot of principles, if they see any wavering they are immediately ready to "teach their own guys a lesson" as they did in '06.

Things Difficult for the Great BO?

Obama to order Guantanamo Bay prison closed - CNN.com

What is up? Why would something like this be difficult for the great BO? We have been assured that the Bush Administration was the worst, most incompetent administration in history, and it is being followed by an administration that is at least as good as FDR or Lincoln, and likely better than both. But now we see:

"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done, but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication," Obama said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday when asked whether he would close the prison in his first 100 days.

I thought the Bush Administration had just put innocent decent folks in Gitmo and tortured them, and now we could turn them loose and have them maybe bunk in at the White House, or potentially with our new Secretary of State. Now we find that "many of them may be very dangerous"? Wow, what a concept! I wonder if that is why they are locked up?

The following sounds more than reasonable -- follow the rule of law but don't release the guilty. I'm hoping he does that as well as stimulates the economy without growing the deficit, increases all our government benefits without costing more money, and lets us all have chocolate cake every day without gaining any weight. He is clearly on that track:

Obama also said he was trying to develop a process that "adheres to rule of law" but "doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."

What intellect! The idea of "not releasing people intent on blowing us up"is the kind of sophisticated insight that one would have never seen in the Bush administration. One might think that our insightful MSM in an article HEADLINED "Obama to order Guantanimo Bay Prison Closed" would ask a couple slightly direct questions like say:

1. When?
   
2. Where will the dangerous prisoners go?

Seems that nobody in the MSM has thought of those points yet even though BO had once said that he would close Gitmo via an executive order on day one. Now it sounds like he is going to give speeches and go to dances like all the Presidents before him. One has to love this comment as being "completely different" than "politics as usual":

I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak, to help design exactly what we need to do," Obama said. "But I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution," he said.

No follow up to that one! No ambiguity there! Gotta love that BO.

Obama also said he was trying to develop a process that "adheres to
rule of law" but "doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on
blowing us up."

Gee, there are "very dangerous" people in Gitmo? I'm shocked! I thought that was just a Bush/Cheney spot where they tortured a lot of poor innocent people! Great to see that he doesn't really want to release a bunch of people intent on "blowing us up" -- wonder if shooting, maiming, gassing, sickening or other objectives are equally "inappropriate"?

So even though the HEADLINE says "He is ordering it closed", the article says "not in the the first 100 days" -- and without reading very hard it sounds like he has no clue how they will get it closed and "not release folks that want to blow us up". So I wonder if any report

Hillbilly SoS

Official: Clinton to push U.S. leadership renewal - CNN.com

I wonder if they will ask her about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (VRWC)? She talked about this horrible and powerful organization on the Today Show on National TV. I assume that she MUST have been correct rather than foolish, since Dan Quayle misspelling "potato" at a grade school spelling bee became national news that stuck with him forever and proved that he was a fool.

So since we KNOW that the "VRWC" must be an intelligent fact rather than some foolish paranoid fantasy, since a person prone to to foolish paranoid fantasies would be even less qualified for national office than a person who adds an 'e' to the end of "potato" -- and we know that we are a fair and rational nation.

So, was the conspiracy destroyed somehow? Maybe hunted down and killed or something since "the vote" doesn't usually affect a conspiracy very much. Maybe they are still in operation and pulling a bunch of strings? Maybe they defeated poor Hilly in the Democrat primaries "somehow" and have cleverly installed BO as their minion -- that would explain the horror of inviting Rick Warren to pray at the inauguration and potential tax cuts. BO is maybe a clever plant by the VRWC.

In any case, it seems like a good question to ask our shiny new SoS, and I'm certain our ever vigilant press and elected officials will be getting right on it!