The Purpose of Debate

Reflections on the Passing Scene - Thomas Sowell - Townhall Conservative

I was struck by the wisdom of this particular comment in the column:

More disturbing than any of the issues of our time are the many people who debate those issues as contests in talking points, rather than as attempts to get at the truth. Too many people debate as if the point is to show who is smarter, rather than which conclusion is correct.

I think Sowell is on to something here. The purpose of NFL football games is to entertain -- and that is gained by the teams doing what it takes to win, which ALWAYS involves pushing at the edges of the rules and using them to your advantage. As an offensive lineman, you are taught how to "hold correctly" with your hands on the jersey or pads inside and your elbows outside. Receivers regularly discreetly push off, the edges of the field are used with amazing gymnastic moves to put the ball where only your receiver can catch it -- and get two feet down. The list could go on and on -- it's a game, and it is meant to be entertaining, and I for one find that it usually is.

Debate is also played as a game in High School and I assume college -- not so much for entertainment, but under strict rules of evidence and time, and judged by a known set of criteria. It is an excellent mechanism for the debaters to understand the topic, because they must have arguments set up so they can debate either side (one could only wish for this to be more common for Americans). The purpose isn't necessarily to get to "a right answer", but to understand the formation of rational arguments.

Shout show cable, and really all of our news media are "shows to make money" -- with more in common with football than debate. Some of the media folks of all stripes are seeking to win converts for a given political position, but the coin of the realm is ratings and money -- the very best, most reasonable, well thought out, well delivered arguments for a point are completely useless if they don't bring people to the set, the radio, the web page, the newspaper or what have you.

None of this is about truth. The vast majority of people look for evidence that supports the world view they already have, and the big change in the modern information buffet is how much it is to do just that. There are a number of great arguments that can be made for things that are widely accepted to be false -- people go through life with all sorts of "stories" for northern lights, "heat lightning", inflation, unemployment, dry skin, terrorism, the price of stocks, gold, oil, coffee, snoring ... the list is infinite, and often what is being searched for is not "the truth" per say, but a "reasonable story" that "feels right" and fits well with whatever set of other stories make up our world view.

My view is that most people DON'T debate -- they want to share their stories and they mostly want others to listen to them and generally agree. If the other person has a similar story, they might like listening so they can improve their story, but the incidence of actual debate, where new information might enter in and stories could be changed is VERY rare.

"Should" it be different? I might personally enjoy it if it was, but I've been around long enough to know that view is very rare. My belief is that the best way to change the general mind is through "improved story quality", and finding ways to increase the factual content of stories while still having them be palatable to a broad set of people. It is something much more excelled at by the more "liberal" in our world, and it is an area that those that want to preserve liberty will need to much improve in order to save the remaining liberty we have.

Samuel Johnson, A Life, By David Nokes

I've been going to read more about Johnson for some time. The standard text to read on him is "The Life of Samuel Johnson" by James Boswell, sometimes called the most famous biographical work written in English, which I will no doubt have to get to. Why exactly I picked this book up, I can't entirely recall, but Johnson is a large enough topic for a couple of views.

His "Dictionary of the English Language", published in 1755 was the standard for over 150 years, and that alone gives him enormous standing in the English speaking world. The book however is more attuned to the attempt of understanding what Johnson's life and thoughts were really about, and he was quite an interesting person.

Born sickly, possibly with Tourette syndrome, to a father deeply in debt for most of his life, Samuel's life had many difficulties. He was large and apparently quite homely, but also when not depressed or ill, quite vigorous. He was a devout man, but like all mankind, subject to temptations of sloth, excess and lust. Since he was a man of letters, diaries, written prayers as well as pamphlets books and plays as well as the subject of a number of biographies, we have a good deal of insight into his private life.

There seems little doubt that he was a genius of literature, able to read, comprehend, editorialize, and maybe most famously, produce the short pithy quotation:

Almost every man wastes part of his life attempting to display qualities which he does not possess.

Bachelors have consciences, married men have wives.

Dictionaries are like watches, the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true.

Every man is rich or poor according to the proportion between his desires and his enjoyments.

One could go on forever with such quotes, he was a master of insight and language.

In 1763, he formed "a Club", a social group that included his friends Reynolds, Burke, Garrick, Goldsmith and eventually Adam Smith and Edward Gibbon. They met Mondays at a pub called the Turk's Head in Soho ... a most august group of men of the era, and a testament to the intellectual standing of Johnson.

While brilliant, given his infirmities and difficulties with love and money, his life was a more or less constant challenge -- but to some degree, it does the heart good to listen to all his difficulty and realize he still lived to a ripe old age, and accomplished a good deal in that life.

Knowledge of Samuel Johnson is pretty much a requirement for a person minimally educated in English literature -- I'm not learned enough to say if this work is a decent competitor to "The Life", but I found it well done, and Mr Nokes reputation precedes him.

Conservatize Me

"A lifelong lefty's attempt to love God, Guns, Reagan and Toby Keith", by John Moe.

This book was (hopefully) intended to be 90% humor, with maybe 10% something worthwhile. I'm thinking that if one was a liberal (clearly the intended audience), it might be quite humorous. I read it primarily as part of my quest to understand the liberal mind.

The premise of the book is that Moe, a Public Radio broadcaster from Seattle, is going to take "one month" to "live like a conservative" and maybe understand how this (to him) very strange breed of humanity thinks, feels and lives. In what strikes me more as a potential way to make a buck than anything else ( NOT that there is anything wrong with that!), he gets the idea a bit from the "Supersize Me" guy -- yes, the overtones of conservatism kind of being like "junk food" would fit right in with the spirit of the book.

Again, since I believe that this book is vastly more about humor than truth, I'm not at all certain which parts of the actions he took were intended to actually shed any light, or were merely designed to create laughs (or maybe money for him).

He for example gets "a suit" to see all the big wig conservatives in DC and NYC -- but of course very few of them are wearing suits. He also gets a whole bunch of Wal-Mart based patriotic, NASCAR and cheap clothing, so he can look like the "average Joes" that at least an NPR guy would be convinced are standard in red state America.

Likewise, he must listen to only Country Music -- and for rather lamely constructed reasons, Kid Rock, on his iPod, get his news from all conservative outlets -- Fox, Talk Radio, NRO, Weekly Standard.

He talks to Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg and Bill Kristol and is surprised that they seem to be reasonably intelligent and he can actually understand (or thinks he does) how they think. He stops at the Family Research Institute and spends an inordinate amount of text on his visit to a College Republican Convention. During these last two, his fixation on his perceived vast mistreatment of "The Gay" by conservatives and Republicans becomes clear.

Apparently, in Moe' mind, not being in favor of gay "marriage" is exactly the same as being anti-gay. It comes down to a world view issue -- does everyone have "tendencies", and "free will" about what we make of the raw material of our bodies, brains, and some of us believe "spirits", or is it true that "we are what we are" -- gay, straight, pedophile, alcoholic, gamblers, moral zealots, liberals, conservatives .... whatever, and our only real task in life is somehow "getting in touch" with our "true nature". Moe doesn't actually get to actually try to understand anything here -- he is just clearly fixated on "how could conservatives be against The Gay", and of course, since the people he is talking to aren't as fixated on the issue as he is, he never gets anywhere in understanding how one might be against gay "marriage" since "it isn't any threat to HIS MARRIAGE". (I kept wondering if he was as perplexed how one could be against genocide in Rawanda even though nobody killing anyone there was a threat to us?)

Again, it is could be that all "The Gay" stuff was really just about getting liberal yuks at the expense of us religious dummy conservatives who don't support gay "marriage".

There are a number of other vignettes -- driving a SUV, Reagan Library, Nixon Library (he liked Nixon, didn't like Reagan), Rexburg Idaho (voted 92% for Bush), and a Toby Keith concert in Indiana, but the big themes are how conservatives supposedly dress, how they are supposedly all pro-war (yet none of the examples he interviewed in '05 were gung ho on the war in Iraq), how they are anti-gay, and how they are kind of "simple minded" ... again, although many of the ones he talked to were actually counter examples.

To try to capture a bit of what may be his actual non-humorous thinking:

Clarity is not always an easy commodity to come by when you live on the left. Much of liberalism is built on the idea of uncertainty. Iraq was opposed on the left because something could go wrong, tax cut programs are opposed because they could further harm the economy, the Patriot Act is opposed because it could lead to a police state. Not to say that liberals are wrong on any of those things, but they were all at least initially based on speculation. Conservatism begins with the permise that the reasoning and the outcome are not matters of conjecture and guesswork, but are rather certainties.

I'd say that liberalism being built on uncertainty and conservatism on certainly is a bit of a stretch. "Something could go wrong" would pretty much support opposing anything, if tax CUTS could harm the economy, then could tax increases help it? -- and is that a speculation? Again, I'm not sure if he is really serious because that paragraph ends with "Now if I could only find a way to open my heart and let Ronald Reagan, or someone like him, be my personal lord and savior". He is very lucky that Christians aren't Muslims -- or that sort of treatment of faith would be a swift path to eternity without your head!

Pretty hard to recommend the book to anyone but a really committed lefty -- I suspect if one is solidly in that world view, much of this would be honestly funny and probably comforting in a shallow sort of political porn way.

The List In our Pocket

NationalJournal.com - A Christmas Wish - Thursday, December 16, 2010

A column on the inherent complexity of life, but short and worth a read. I do believe that along with not being able to sit in a quiet room alone with our thoughts (Pascal), modern man is worsened by our reduced time at graveside. Having just read a biography of Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), the vast set of ailments that resulted in death at any age, and the rather common death of young children allowed people in the vast history of mankind to much better realize the fragility of their lives while yet alive. Eternity is so very much longer than the human span.

Dowd's (no relative of Maureen) younger sister, apparently a drug abuser, died of an overdose, and Dowd is struck by the poignancy of "a Christmas list in her pocket". We all have some form of such lists, and the thought of exiting with them unfinished from whatever cause is indeed poignant. Dowd has been something of a policial operative for both sides, and laments the quick and easy labels that we apply to each other and of course to politicians -- generally lamenting those of "our side", but feeling them nearly 100% justified as applied to the other. Apparently, thoughts of the ultimate turn his mind to politics -- especially in this season, I'm uncertain that reaches the meaning he is grasping after.

Death makes us look in the souls mirror and realize that we are all too human -- not nearly as super intelligent, wonderful in character, lovable, wise, and "godlike" as we might believe. Some more quite thought might bring realization that ALL the lists -- of politics past and future, goals, desires, hopes, expectations and "truths"(firmly identified by man) look awfully insignificant from graveside, staring eternity in the face. We, and all we love, live but one heartbeat away from being no more.

Perhaps it would be more worthy to look to the manger, then to the cross and realize that SOME "sound bites" and "labels" are very short and simple, yet crucial. Christian -- knowing personally the gift of the manger and the cross, and the humility to accept his grace and however weakly, to follow him. The truth of us all having a Christmas list in our pocket, nor any other truth, save the real meaning of Christmas, will make this, and most critically, the next world better.

Labels ARE the Problem

RealClearPolitics - Labels Aren't the Problem

At least when we don't agree on what labels mean.

From the founding up until the 30's, "Left" meant "Control" -- Monarchy, socialism, dictatorship, communism ... "statism". Leviathan run amok.

"Right" meant "chaos" -- extreme liberty, anarchy, "Solitary, nasty, brutish and short".

America was founded as "center right" meaning to the traditional measure of "liberal" as being rooted in "liberty", purposely slightly more toward chaos than control, realizing the natural tendency of control (power) to continue to aggrandize itself and corrupt.

So ...

The No Labelers are also right to be repulsed by the replacement of real argument with a vicious brand of name-calling. When a president of the United States is attacked simultaneously as an "extreme liberal liar" and a "Nazi," there is a sick irrationality at work in our discourse.

It's only "sick and irrational" if one doesn't realize that the term "liberal" has been corrupted to mean "left", when it's real meaning is "right", and the Nazi's were "National Socialists" -- and socialism is part of the left. Given today's definition of liberal as left and socialism as being part of the left, it makes PERFECT sense to tie "liberal and Nazi together" -- all be it that it makes the corruption of the language relative to "liberal and liberty" very plain.

The basic difficulty arises from a false equivalence they make between our current "left" and our current "right." The truth is that the American right is much farther from anything that can fairly be described as "the center" than is the left.

This is proof that we have moved so far left after TR, Wilson, FDR, LBJ and W that our left can't really figure out how to go farther. The"right" is so far left of center that our founding fathers wouldn't even see it as "right" at all. It is "right" only compared to today's left -- compared to an objective view of left/right, both are parties are parties of the left.

He has also been mugged by reality -- EJ would like to see some lefties that don't believe in markets, but once the USSR fell and even China does it's best to support markets, it is as hard as finding a flat earther after spaceflight. Reagan, Thatcher, the fall of the USSR, the rise of India and China due to market based reforms -- now even SWEDEN following market reforms ought to be the economic equivalent of orbital spaceflight to a flat earther.

So EJ has a few problems. He doesn't understand what left and right is, the world has moved so far left he can't find anything to the left of it, and the obvious fact of markets (that could not even be stamped out by the USSR) has forced nearly everyone (EJ must be holding out) to realize that outlawing markets is like outlawing gravity -- it may sound nice to some ears, but "reality bites".

The problem of the left is that they have actually "achieved" more than is achievable -- and now it is clear that the bill for the unachievable of Social Security, Medicare, Health Care, etc can't be paid. We have run into the left wall and what EJ sees as "something missing" is merely the left bouncing off reality.

Even Sweden Gets It?

RealClearPolitics - The Brighter Europe

I've heard snippets of this elsewhere, but one can imagine that the MSM would be awfully quiet on it. Sweden has been the poster child for "socialism that works" for as long as I can remember -- to have that be a myth would be nearly as painful for the MSM and left in this country as the fall of the Berlin Wall. How can it be?? It just seems so cruel for our leftward elite to learn such harsh lessons as "there is no free lunch", "working hard and being responsible is the way to a good life", and "socialism only works until you run out of other people's money".

Man, if it keeps going this way, the next thing the liberals are going to have to find out is that Santa is a myth!

BO Explains Tax Deal

This actually looks about as close to the truth as one could get I think.

Bush Smiles, Media Weeps

Why George W. Bush must be smiling - CNN.com

CNN and the rest of the left remain in a tizzy over BO considering "extending the Bush tax cuts" -- a euphemism for "not doing a tax increase in a recession".

A major part of their consternation is that they believe their own marketing lies on the tax cuts:

The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 provided relief for middle- and upper-income Americas with much of the benefits going toward wealthier citizens, which they argued would accelerate economic growth. The tax cuts reduced rates cross the board on income, dividends and capital gains. They also slashed the estate tax while lowering the tax obligations of married and working poor Americans.

Much as "global warming" is now "climate change", they HAVE changed from merely always saying "tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans" to the slightly more truthful "much of the benefits going toward wealthier". The original ratios were the same as what we have just been discussing: $3 TRILLION for those less than $250K a year income, $700 Billion for those over $25K over a 10 year period. That is over 4x the benefit for those making less than $250K, thus showing the lie of that commonly uttered statement "tax cuts for the rich". In fact, it is really more dishonest that that number, because the folks over $250K are paying over 95% of the taxes.

Much of what Bush did was "reality based", so as reality on things like Gitmo, Patriot Act, jobs creation, etc, so much to the chagrin of the MSM and the far left, as BO is faced with reality rather than political campaign rhetoric, he is forced to bow to reality. It is possible that makes Bush smile, I don't know -- but to the reality based, it really isn't any sort of surprise at all. My guess is that Bush smiles when things are going well for America -- the exceptional America of limited government and personal liberty, while the media weeps for things going well for that America. The America they want is "US Europe" -- just like Greece, "free" only as in "free from religion, morality and patriotism".

Nor is the fact that the left continues to rail against reality surprising -- the only way they can actually "have their way" is a totalitarian regime, and while most of them don't realize that, it would be the ultimate result of their efforts. Thus, our founders wisely tried to make it difficult to have unlimited government ... the scourge of BO has yet again been an example of their wisdom.

Don't Put Down Lewis

Power Line

Apparently even Chris Mathews knows to not sell C.S. Lewis short -- I've loved everything my him that I've ever read, and I have a number of items that I still would like to get to.

BO Alienates the Middle

From Audacity to Animosity - WSJ.com:

Good Peggy Noonan. BO pretty much managed to alienate everyone on the tax deal -- which I'd argue isn't all that surprising for an anti-colonialist in a colonizing nation.

A failed Community Organizer isn't going to know how to be President, so up to now, he let Nancy and Harry drive. It is now clear they politically drove him in a ditch, so now he has decided to drive -- but of course he has never driven anything, not even a lemonade stand, so it is unsurprising that his lack of driving skills is painfully obvious to all sides!

The president must have thought that distancing himself from left and right would make him more attractive to the center. But you get credit for going to the center only if you say the centrist position you've just embraced is right. If you suggest, as the president did, that the seemingly moderate plan you agreed to is awful and you'll try to rescind it in two years, you won't leave the center thinking, "He's our guy!" You'll leave them thinking, "Note to self: Remove Obama in two years."

Ideology Loses

Charles Krauthammer - Swindle of the year

Good Krauthammer, worth the short read. My view of the basics of what is happening here:

1. The left doesn't REALLY see tax cuts as "stimulus" -- they only see federally controlled SPENDING as "stimulus", it is essentially a code word for paying off their cronies. Any effect on the economy of what they have called stimulus is just a side effect -- their disdain over tax cuts pretty much proves it.

2. The left has lost their way so badly that they ACTUALLY believe that Tax Cuts = Spending. At one time I think they realized it was just a stupid marketing ploy to make tax cuts sound less desirable, but now they have fallen in to believe their own lies and can't tell the difference.

3. At the end of the day, the ONLY thing Democrats care about is increased federal power and "punishment of their enemies" -- which they see as "Rich people that refuse to vote Democrat" in particular, and Republicans and "the dummy electorate" in general. Their hatred is consuming, because as Charles points out, even when their leader has obtained something that is politically (to help them in 2012) and economically (in their world view) wonderful beyond their wildest dreams, they just can't go for it because it doesn't attack the rich, and they see it as a "deal with their sworn enemy -- which ought to pretty much give the lie to what Democrats ACTUALLY think of "bi-partisanship".

Most of politics is simple theater, but has the left now gone so far that even their minions in the media can't understand what BO is doing?

Hence that news-conference attack on what the administration calls the "professional left" for its combination of sanctimony and myopia. It was Obama's Sister Souljah moment. It had a prickly, irritated sincerity - their ideological stupidity and inability to see the "long game" really do get under Obama's skin - but a decidedly calculated quality, too. Where, after all, does the left go? Stay home on Election Day 2012? Vote Republican?

Unless one is blind with rage against people that make over $250K, it is hard to imagine how BO's deal wasn't a huge victory politically and economically for Democrats, BUT, they don't see it. From a Republican view, the issue really is HOW different is avoiding a tax increase during a recession from government deficit spending? My view is VERY different, but the biggest problem is the "two years" -- that is added uncertainty, which is exactly the same problem as increasing troops in Afghanistan and then promising to pull them out in "two years" (now this coming summer). Humans react BOTH to what is and what will be -- in fact, "future sense" is a gigantic part of what makes us human.

What we need to do is to FIX SPENDING -- keeping a couple of bottles of revenue booze away from the Federal spendaholic is better in my mind than letting him get them, so he develops a thirst for even more, but "the deal" did absolutely nothing to deal with what we need to deal with ... SPENDING!!!

Reagan's War

"The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism", by Peter Schweizer.

One needs to have a strong interest in history, Reagan, the Cold War, or all of the above to really enjoy this book--fortunately, I do.

We live in a very unique part of history because of the fall of the Soviet Union and the release of it's client states has allowed those that are interested in truth vs ideology to get access to to the files of the once evil empire and to find out the facts behind the myth that the media and the Democrats often spew about the fall of communism. The simple version of that myth is: "Everyone knew that communism was failing, Reagan probably slowed the final demise by his bellicose rhetoric and huge arms buildup".

Like most of what you hear from the MSM or their friends the Democrats, it is verifiably false, and this book points to a good deal of that verification.

The book is chocked full of quotes from the left on the validity of the communist approach, constant derision of the "simple mindedness" of Reagan's concept that we could "win the Cold War", along with Reagan's quotes plus inside documentation from the USSR of how they played those attempting "detente" for suckers and used the opening to blow open the arms race in their favor, build huge underground facilites so their elite could survive a nuclear conflagration and the story of how they used the Carter years in particular to advance in Nicaragua, Grenada and a number of African countries before they moved into Afghanistan, and Carter, finally, got at least slightly wise. Again, all backed up with quotes from the archives of the USSR, Poland, East Germany and others.

In case anyone wants to claim that "they were trying to help their people, they just had bad luck -- or were hampered by the west, or excuse # 10,000 ---Walter Ulbricht, head of East Germany in the 1960's secretly wrote to Khrushchev in the early '60s:

"The experience of the last years have proven that it is not possible for a socialist country, such as the GDR to cary out peaceful competition with an imperialist country such as West Germany with open borders". 

One might think that Obama, Pelosi and others would find that quote worth a read! The point in this book however is that Reagan had figured the same thing out and was saying it from podiums around the nation -- and being called "old fashioned and simple minded" for doing so, while the elite behind the Iron Curtain KNEW that they were damaging their people by their system, but flat out didn't care!

There are a series of quotes relative to Reagan's "evil empire speech", for example, Anthony Lewis of the NYTimes said it was "simplistic and sectarian", but it is now documented that the folks in the gulag and in Solidarity and other similar group eventually found out about it and found it to be a gigantic source of strength -- an American president was FINALLY on their side!

One of the most effective weapons he enabled was a huge improvement in the Voice of America in technology, programming and broadcast power. As Reagan said: "The truth is mankind's best hope for a better world, that's why in times like these, few assets are more important than The Voice of America and Radio Liberty".  The Carter administration had allowed VoA to be used on occasion to broadcast SOVIET messages as an example of "good will". Imagine yourself trapped behind the Iron Curtain and hearing the radio station financed by the only reasonable adversary to your captors allowing YOUR CAPTORS to broadcast their propaganda -- as if you don't already hear enough of that!

Here is Andropov from the archives:

"The 1970's were the years of further growth of power and influence in the socialist commonwealth. We were able to achieve the military pairity with the West. This gave us an opportunity to deal with them on an equal basis. Our dynamic policy of detente led to substantial positive shifts in international relations."

Our enemy loved detente! But they HATED Reagan -- almost as much as the American media and the Democrats! In 1980, Carter himself sent Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy to offer assistance to the USSR if they could help his election prospects through the release of political prisoners or ams concessions. They considered the offer, but had hopes that Reagan would turn out to be like Nixon -- willing to bluster to gain support with the hawks, but anxious to find agreement to gain votes for that second term. It was a miscalculation that thankfully turned out to be fatal.

Those of us of my age had the wonderful privilege of living through a moment in history that our teachers, media elite and government had assured us would never happen. In fact, we had been raised to believe that socialism and communism were certainly very valid approaches to government, and it was highly questionable if Democracy and Capitalism were actually superior! I'll close with the words of Reagan, given to the Soviet elite students in Moscow on his final visit there:

"Even as we explore the the most advanced reaches of science, we are returning to age-old wisdom of our culture, a wisdom contained in the Book of Genesis in the Bible. In the beginning was the spirit, and it wa from this spirit that the material abundance of creation issued forth. But progress is not foreordained. The key is freedom--freedom of thought, freedom of information, freedom of communication". 

There will never be another Reagan, but Lord, PLEASE send us the best available SOON!

Palin's reckless views on obesity - CNN.com

Palin's reckless views on obesity - CNN.com

Why we don't all get along.

• The clearest meaning of this column is that Martin has a severe case of Palin Derangement Syndrome -- an irrational fear and loathing of all things Palin.
• If you read what Sarah said, and then read what Martin said, one wonders how one can really be as much in hatred of someone and still hold a position at a news outlet that some would like to recognize as something other that just an arm of the Democrat party. Apparently, CNN doesn't care.
•  Sarah happens to feel that Michelle and Barack Obama tend to see every problem as having a government solution. She said NOTHING relative to the severity of the obesity problem.
• It is MARTIN that is of the view that "Severe = need for massive government involvement". He certainly has a right to that view, but it absolutely isn't what America has traditionally been about, nor is there any proof whatsoever that every time the government dives into a problem it has vastly better results than other means.

In short, this column is nothing more than an excuse for simple name-calling:

• "It's clear that we can't go 24 hours without Sarah Palin saying something so stupid that it defies logic" (having a different view than Martin is "stupid")
• "the Kim Kardashian of politics"
• "Palin took dead aim" ( a warlike metaphor used to make Palin seem "warlike" ... she didn't say it, he did)"
• "Maybe someone should kick Sarah Palin" (man the Democrats get incensed if ANYTHING like this is said about their folks --- incitement to violence and all that)
• "latest broadside by Palin shows how reckless and ridiculous she is."
• "Any Republican with common sense should see that Sarah Palin poses an immediate threat to the future of this country. She proves that every time she opens her mouth."

I love the last one ... anyone that doesn't buy into the thinking that government is the answer to EVERYTHING, including what we weigh is "an immediate threat to the future of this country".

This is CNN -- not a blogger, not HuffPo. The "Tea Party" is "shrill"? Oh, give me a break!

The Roots of Obama's Rage

Solid effort by Dinesh D'souza, a naturalized American of Indian (as in Indian)  decent who I find to have a unique perspective on the value of America as an exceptional nation.

The thesis of the book is quite simple; By the proper reading of Obama's "Dreams FROM my Father", plus some extra research, it is clear that the core motivation of Obama is that of an anti-colonialist, the "colonialist"  role somewhat nonsensically assigned to America as a result of her ties to Europe, super power status, and such events as the "taking" of the Southwest from Mexico, the Philippines, Hawaii, and other activities seen as having "taken over the colonial mantle".

The following from BO's "Dreams":

When my tears were finally spent, I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized who I was, what I cared about, was no more just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America -- the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I'd felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I'd witnessed in Chicago--all of this was connected with this small plot of earth an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain that I felt was my fathers pain.

This quote follows rather long segment where BO talks of his father -- the "imaginary father", the "great man" that abandoned BO at age two ad visited him for a week when BO was 12. The real father went back to Africa, had a number of wives, sired a number of children, took care of none, drank heavily, crashed his car and lost his legs in a major drunken accident. Continued to drink and eventually died in another drunken crash. But both the imaginary and real father were staunchly "anti-colonial" -- as is BO in the books thesis.

Obama is a man on a mission, and he is obsessed with executing that mission. He is like the lead character in a movie who has come home to find his whole family wiped out. The incident brings forth an outpouring of grief and rage, but in time the emotions settle, leaving behind a more controlled anger combined with steely resolve. From that point, the man's course is set; the rest of his life is dedicated to a campaign of revenge. In Obama's case the villans are dead, sot he rage takes a different form and settles on a different target. Rather than focus on the specific people who wronged his family, Obama is on a systematic campaign against the colonial system that destroyed his fathers dreams. With a kind of suppressed fury, he is committed to keep going until he has brought that system down. And according to his father's anti colonial ideology, which Obama has internalized for himself, that system is the military and economic power of the United States of America.

Does Dinesh "prove" the thesis? No, of course not -- the inner motivations of characters are only known in novels, in the the real world, typically only even marginally to the person themselves.

I am struck however how often the MSM would engage in negative armchair psychology over Bush or Reagan though. W of course being motivated to attack Iraq because "Saddam tried to kill his father" ... or motivated to attack because "HW not finishing the job" in '91 cost the election. Or he was motivated to be president in order to "measure up" after a being a long term frat-boy disappointment to the family. Reagan was often just "nuts" ... "acting on the basis of some script of movie, motivated by some fantasy that never was or would be", "or just a puppet, driven by his handlers".

In short, the MSM often finds the motivations of the right to be "dark ... disturbing ... difficult to understand ... questionable". All the while, the motivations of Democrats are so OBVIOUS, they really don't need coverage at all -- doing "intelligent things for good", "peace", "children" ... "caring". The motivations of the left are amazingly clear to the left -- if only because the assumed motivations are simply projections of the goodness that the folks on the left believe they see in themselves.

The book is an easy, quick and very scary read. If you don't want to read "Dreams from My Father", which is a not very well written, hard to maintain interest, but very surprising and maybe even more scary if you can get through it book, this is an excellent alternative. As I have said before, as long as this guy is in the WH we are in GRAVE danger!

Of course, reading my excellent review of "Dreams", followed by "Rage", would also be a fine approach ;-)

End of World? 2012 CME?

I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Any Port in a Storm - Cringely on technology

We know the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, maybe this is the reason! ;-)

Seriously, a large Coronal Mass Ejection ala the 1859 edition talked about here would probably put the world essentially without power and communication for MANY months! That might not be "the end", but it would certainly wake a lot of folks up to technology dependence ... and maybe wake up just a small shred of the idea that "Man is not REALLY the Measure!"

CME’s come in various sizes and velocities. CME’s aren’t intrinsically aimed at the Earth and could just as easily dissipate into empty space. Many CME’s don’t even make it as far as the Earth. But if conditions are right, CME’s can do a lot of damage. A CME hit Quebec in 1989 causing a nine-hour blackout and $4.3 billion in damages to the Canadian power grid. The mother of all CME’s in 1859 took down every telegraph in the world, causing arcing, fires, and melted wires in the equipment. Imagine what something like that would do to your PC or cellphone!