Rapids OneNighttime On River CityJamFeel Like A StrangerTurn On Your LovelightFire WallStormbringerGrassflatsDrawing OnePrint 3U!Print 2A Day Without BloodMeteorsIcevineGuitarsSevere Storm TwoDeep In The WoodsNew York PathGreen Land

My right wing friends are apparently always right.  Never has a day gone by that they have made a mistake.  Unfortunately, because the political left acts in similar kind, this legitimizes the entire farce that we identify as political discourse.

Today, in the New York Post, Michael Yon wrote that, “The Iraq War is over…Nobody knows what the future will bring, but the civil war has completely ended.”  He cites many instances of people working together, and the fact that deaths have thankfully decreased in frequency.

I pause to think about the circumstances that have led us to where we are today.   You see, much of what makes the Iraq War so redeeming to so many people is that they need to tell themselves a few things. First, the mainstream media is left wing and biased and threatens U.S. security.  Second, Other firms and think tanks are also left wing, and any statistics that do not come from the American Enterprise Institute should be treated as biased.

These assumptions are necessary because it is part of their own cognitive dissonance.  On the other hand, part of my own cognitive dissonance relies on the premise that I have seen many powerful nations engage in similar wars and occupations only to fail and be seen as mistakes later on.

The assumptions are necessary because one could find many reasons as to why the violence in Iraq has ebbed.  You see, take into account that the United Nations High Commission on Refugees states that 4.7 million Iraqis have either fled Iraq, or have been displaced within Iraq.  It’s as if that “idiotic” three state solution that Biden had proffered has already taken place by simple economics.  “I’ll decide to move rather than get murdered.”  Case in point, Iraqi Kurdistan still exists.

It’s a great illustration as to how perspective with respect to our own cognitive dissonance makes a difference.  You say civil war has ended.  I say that over 4 million people have moved.

Why is our staying in Iraq such a great thing?  What makes our occupation in Iraq so much better than our intervention in Somalia?  More to the point, why is it that no one ever cares to discuss that both political parties have similar foreign policy goals.  The only difference is that when one party has executed a plan, the other party is ready to discount it.  The only thing we are ever really fighting for in the U.S. is political power.

At some point, each of us will have to swallow our pride and admit we have been playing follow the leader (pundit) of our respective political party for quite some time.

I most certainly can give you one thing that is mainstream about the mainstream media.  When a news organization assembles a group of pundits to discuss the economy, they have a great way of making the person who says a recession is coming look like a dissident lunatic.

If you have someone who swears by Jim Cramer, or Fox News, try to show them the clip I linked to above.

Marin Cogan writes:

Democrats may scratch their heads over why [the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine] has lately become a right-wing obsession, but the paranoia is not without precedent. The prospect of being in the opposition often brings out the worst in conservatives–paranoia and self-pity. Plus, when the conservative coalition seems threatened, there’s no better way to unify the party than scaring up liberal bogeymen.

One thing that Democrats need to keep in mind is that, with the Republicans now the minority party, it will not be the typical liberal bogeymen syndrome, per se. Though all traditionalists are progressive when convenient (and vice versa), right-wing traditionalists believe that left-wing progressives are exceptionally coercive. Obama has already been framed as the farthest left senator in the history of everything. Hence, the coercive progressivism meme coupled with the center-right nation myth will become the frame through which right-wing pundits will view any federal intervention that the Democrats will support during the next four to eight years.

FAQs:

  • I do feel more healthy.
  • I no longer get urges.
  • I did almost break down a few times and relapse.
  • Eventually you get over the hump.
  • Not shelling out $5 every other day is a good feeling.
  • People expect you to be in your office more if you don’t smoke.
  • I am in my office more but I don’t think I get more work done now.
  • Really, there’s really no reason at all to smoke.
  • What’s left of my hair is more strongly rooted.
  • And my hands and fingers no longer smell.
  • It’s almost as if I never smoked.
  • Unfortunately, I can now smell my coworkers who smoke.
  • Fortunately, I no longer stand in the cold rain with them.

CNN has a sad story about Christopher Lloyd’s home being destroyed by the Southern California wildfires. It’s sad because Christopher Lloyd is one celebrity to whom you can’t possibly want bad things to happen.

Dan Shelley, former assistant program director at Milwaukee’s WTMJ, on right-wing talk radio:

To begin with, talk show hosts…are popular and powerful because they appeal to a segment of the population that feels disenfranchised and even victimized by the media. These people believe the media are predominantly staffed by and consistently reflect the views of social liberals. This view is by now so long-held and deep-rooted, it has evolved into part of virtually every conservative’s DNA.

To succeed, a talk show host must perpetuate the notion that his or her listeners are victims, and the host is the vehicle by which they can become empowered. The host frames virtually every issue in us-versus-them terms. There has to be a bad guy against whom the host will emphatically defend those loyal listeners.

This enemy can be a politician – either a Democratic officeholder or, in rare cases where no Democrat is convenient to blame, it can be a “RINO” (a “Republican In Name Only,” who is deemed not conservative enough). It can be the cold, cruel government bureaucracy. More often than not, however, the enemy is the “mainstream media” – local or national, print or broadcast.

Professor Alva Noë on consciousness:

We should reject the idea that the mind is something inside of us that is basically matter of just a calculating machine. There are different reasons to reject this. But one is, simply put: there is nothing inside us that thinks and feels and is conscious. Consciousness is not something that happens in us. It is something we do.

A much better image is that of the dancer. A dancer is locked into an environment, responsive to music, responsive to a partner. The idea that the dance is a state of us, inside of us, or something that happens in us is crazy. Our ability to dance depends on all sorts of things going on inside of us, but that we are dancing is fundamentally an attunement to the world around us.

Michael concludes:

Ultimately, attacking people based on broken parables is much more attractive than actually getting people to think about issues. Why? Cognitive dissonance. You already have the answers you want, now you just look for ways to prove it.

I agree. Moderately intelligent people do this to exaggerate the depth of their intellectual despair. I’m for moral relativism to the extant that the guy in the room with his finger on the trigger is for it. However, staining a 13th Century legend with digital ink is unbecoming. It’s also unbecoming to use a story based upon German emigration and prosperity to paint Obama supporters as fools.

The New York Times on how websites can encourage delusional thinking:

“The views of these belief systems are like a shark that has to be constantly fed,” Dr. Hoffman said. “If you don’t feed the delusion, sooner or later it will die out or diminish on its own accord. The key thing is that it needs to be repetitively reinforced.”

Dr. Bell and some other mental health professionals say that even if the users of such sites are psychotic, forging an online connection to others and being told — perhaps for the first time — “you are not crazy” could actually have a positive effect on their illnesses.

“We know, for example, that things like social support, all of these positive social aspects are very good for people’s mental illness,” Dr. Bell said. “I wouldn’t say it’s entirely and completely positive, but it can be positive.”

“These people lead quietly desperate lives,” said Dr. Jeffrey A. Lieberman, chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. “And if they are reinforcing each other and pulling people toward something, if they are using the Internet and getting reinforcement, that’s good.”

There may be something to this:  These folks seem content with themselves as well as this guy and whoever wrote this.

What’s that about clinging to guns?

Though I’m not a fan, Newsweek has what appears to be the definitive guide to Election ‘08. For just a few hours of reading, the seven chapters cover what a few days of high school history will never (and don’t you secretly want to be smarter than a 16 year old?):

This series answered a few of questions of mine that had not been adequately answered during the election.

Chapter 4: I don’t know much about Lindsey Graham, but are the rumors true? Is he really a turdbucket? All signs point to “yes”:

Sen. Lindsey Graham was watching on TV. McCain’s friend, who had sharp political instincts, saw an opportunity. As he later recalled, he thought, “Oh, boy,” as he reached for the phone to call McCain. “Look at this!” he exclaimed to the candidate, who was also watching. “Who the hell does this guy think he is? And who are all those Germans, and what are they cheering about?” To Graham, Obama’s speech was all about Obama, grandstanding for a bunch of foreigners.

When did the McCain campaign realize that their lethargic candidate needed a boisterous running mate?

McCain himself seemed grouchy and unhappy on the campaign trail. He was doing fewer town-hall meetings, and his aides, upset when no one laughed at the candidate’s tried and-true jokes at one particularly sorry affair in Belleville, Mich., decided they’d better start packing the hall with McCainiacs. (The audience was full of undecided and skeptical voters; the campaign had been trying to make a point with the press and Obama by daring to plunge the candidate into true arenas of democracy—i.e., before unscreened voters.) Before long, McCain’s “town halls” were almost as tame as George W. Bush’s in 2004, when the president spoke to by-invitation-only crowds.

With the odds overwhelmingly stacked against him, how did Obama win? Obama was a viral candidate infecting hearts and minds as well as Youtubes and cellphone. Future candidates are not aware of this yet—the dust has yet to settle—but, from now on, all campaigns will have to be viral to some degree.

Tap the top button, “call friends,” and the software would take a peek at your phonebook and rearrange it in the order that the campaign was targeting states, so that friends who had, say, Colorado or Virginia area codes would appear at the top. With another tap, the Obama supporter could report back essential data for a voter canvass (”left message,” “not interested,” “already voted,” etc.). It all went into a giant database for Election Day.

Early that summer, the campaign made the unorthodox decision to announce its vice presidential pick via text messages sent directly to supporters. It wasn’t just a trick to do something flashy with technology and attract media attention. The point was to collect voters’ cell-phone numbers for later contact during voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts. Thanks to the promotion, the campaign’s list of cell-phone numbers increased several-fold to more than 1 million. (Among the registrees: one Beau Biden, son of Joe.)

“I don’t care about online energy and enthusiasm just for the sake of online energy and enthusiasm,” said Chris Hughes, head of New Media’s social networking. “It’s about making money, making phone calls, embedding video or having video forwarded to friends.” There was nothing starry-eyed about Hughes, who had been the Harvard roommate and later partner of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and made his first millions before he was 24. His goal was to make old techniques—like call centers and getting polling information to voters—more efficient. “When computer applications really take off, they take something people have always done and just make it easier for them to do it,” he said. “And maybe bigger.”

During the primaries, the sight was familiar at vast Obama rallies. Before the candidate appeared, a campaign official would come onstage to urge audience members to pull out their cell phones to call or text their friends and neighbors.

Chapter 5: Though McCain seemed to dislike pandering to them, how beholden to the “religious right” was his campaign?

But when McCain brought up Lieberman’s name at a secret high-level meeting held in Sedona, Ariz., to consider veep choices on Sunday, Aug. 24, his top aides balked. They warned that McCain’s support among evangelicals was already soft. Lieberman was pro-choice on abortion, and a pro-choice pick would deeply antagonize the religious right, maybe even provoke a floor fight at the convention. Pollster Bill McInturff told the group that a pro-choice running mate had the potential to cause a 20-point drop in support among McCain’s core voters. A small uptick in independent voters or crossover Democrats wouldn’t begin to make up the difference. It would be very difficult for McCain to heal the party in the two short months before Election Day.

Chapter 6: Why didn’t McCain look at Obama during the first debate?

Why, one aide asked him, did you never look at Obama? Because you told me not to! McCain retorted. It was true. McCain’s debate coach, Brett O’Donnell, had noted Obama’s tendency to look directly at an opponent while attacking, and he had instructed McCain not to get sucked in by meeting his gaze. But McCain had taken the advice a little too literally. “We didn’t tell you not to look at him at all,” one aide chided him.

How did the McCain campaign perceive a Clinton vice presidential nomination?

He was relieved to face him as the veep choice, and not Hillary Clinton, whom the McCain camp had truly feared. At the vice presidential debate on Oct. 2, McCain was delighted to see that Sarah Palin had irritated Biden. Watching the TV with some aides, McCain exclaimed, “He looks like an angry old senator!”

Why was the McCain campaign so sensitive to the charge that they were running a divisive campaign? Because they held back the really divisive stuff (at least until the last hour).

McCain had set firm boundaries: no Jeremiah Wright; no attacking Michelle Obama; no attacking Obama for not serving in the military. McCain balked at an ad using images of children that suggested that Obama might not protect them from terrorism; Schmidt vetoed ads suggesting that Obama was soft on crime (no Willie Hortons); and before word even got to McCain, Schmidt and Salter scuttled a “celebrity” ad of Obama dancing with talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres (the sight of a black man dancing with a lesbian was deemed too provocative).

Do you remember in 2004 when people would tell you that you don’t vote for another president when there’s a war going on?  (By the way, at the time we still had the same two wars we have now.)  How did I know this?  Because people at my work place told me this.  Why?  I don’t know, maybe it’s because they are superstitious beings, otherwise known as humans.

At it’s core, this is once again about cognitive dissonance.  We might be better off if we all admitted that we did it, but good luck trying to get Americans to be humble and/or knowledgeable about psychology.

A friend of mine even used the parable of recently saying “I wonder how that pied piper thing worked out.”  This was an implicit attack on Obama, which is fine…I guess.  One of the problems is that the argument could have easily been made for any other politician who won by any margin ever.  More problematic though is the fact that he misuses the parable as well as makes an implicit “Obama will kill your children” remark.

I’ll let Will handle the psychological hand wringing as to how someone could let such an implicit remark become so normal – and to them – non offensive.

However, it’s important that we remember the parable of the Pied Piper.  You see, he did his job for a town by getting rid of its rats.  The town subsequently did not pay him, and he came back and took their children.  With no memory of even a story like the pied piper, it’s no wonder why people make remarks that we are bound to repeat history.

It’s sad most of all because these remarks end up being so personal.  One could easily make a remark against Obama normally, like a human.  Here, I’ll show you because I actually wonder about this.

I wonder how a President Obama will reconcile spending increases with an ailing economy.  I worry that it may be detrimental to the future solvency of the United States.

Wow, how hard was that?  And in asking such a legitimate question, I made a point that everyone can take seriously and think about.

Ultimately, attacking people based on broken parables is much more attractive than actually getting people to think about issues.  Why?  Cognitive dissonance.  You already have the answers you want, now you just look for ways to prove it.

Source: All photographs obtained via Daylife.

Source: All photographs obtained via Daylife.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pennsylvania + Ohio. This is going to be huge.

Source: All photographs obtained via Daylife.