Certain Doubt

Nothing is certain in life except doubt

  • Home
  • About Me
  • Book Reviews
  • Personal Plea
  • Statement of Purpose

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

It Can’t Happen Here

Thursday, August 25th, 2011

It can’t happen here…. Right?

http://9gag.com/gag/219554/?add_post=success

Tags: 9gag, certaindoubt, http://digg.com/news/politics/it_can_t_happen_here_2, imgur, Perry, Politics, president, reddit, religion, Rick Perry, satire, tea party, Thomas Vincent, Vincent
Posted in Daily Doubt, Politics, Uncategorized, government, humor, satire | No Comments »

Problems

Tuesday, July 26th, 2011

If there are two themes that have been central to my adult life, the first has to be that in order to come to any meaningful solution to a problem, one must first correctly identify the problem.

The second is that once correctly identified, most problems are really not all that difficult.

Regardless of how intractable and tough a quandary may seem, when you strip off all the non-essentials, when you lose the emotional baggage you bring to a problem, peel away the layers of “woulda, shoulda, coulda,” the essential nature of most of life’s dilemmas is usually pretty simple. Often, I have found, the difficulty of correctly identifying a problem far exceeds the difficulty of coming up with a fix. Moreover, when identified, it is uncanny how often the “problem” turns out to be not a problem after all.

Need an example?

Take the problem of getting to the moon. On the surface this problem might seem to be daunting in its complexity, requiring among other things, a prodigious amount of mathematics, physics, and engineering. (To say nothing of a mountain of cash.) In short, getting to the moon, really is rocket science.

But take a step back for a minute and ask yourself: is the question of how to get to the moon really a problem that needs solving? In retrospect, I am not at all certain. To be sure, our few trips to the moon took a herculean effort and were a monumental scientific achievement. However, if we really face the facts, our moon shots, indeed our entire space program, was motivated principally by a desire to win the cold war “space race,” by reaching the moon ahead of the Soviet Union. Thus we spent millions of dollars of tax payer money and years of research in what amounted to a politico/galactic pissing match that netted us little more than some cool photos and a handful of exotic rocks. When one considers the other uses that money could have been used for, other problems that could have been solved – oh, say, developing solar energy, or building up our infrastructure, or even educating our population in math and science such that we didn’t have large numbers of ignorant nut jobs wandering around who are so gullible to believe that a project as big as a moon shot could be faked – it’s enough to make one weep.

Thus, while the problem of how to get to the moon is undeniably complex, if one truly asks oneself why the problem needs to be solved, one might decide it simply wasn’t worth the effort. The issue would be moot.

Need a domestic example? Most of the few problems my wife and I had with our son when he was a teenager had more to do with our preconceptions of what was right and proper than they did with anything he did. His actions were rarely unsafe, or harmful to others. If he decided to dye his hair green like he did one Halloween was that really the end of the world? Nope. The obscenity laden graffiti drawn on his wall with a sharpie? Annoying, but not really life and death. Ultimately, the problems I had with most of my son’s acting out had more to do with me than to do with him. Thus, they were not really problems at all. Or they were not battles that needed to be fought.

And speaking of unnecessary battles, our current militaristic foreign policy is a classic example of a whole slew of problems that seem insurmountable, yet when you step back, they are not really problems that need solving. We didn’t have to invade Afghanistan or Iraq. We don’t need to be occupying those countries. Like most wars of aggression, the argument can be made that our entire foreign policy is nothing short of one big global pissing match. It’s tragic to think of what we could be accomplishing with the trillions of dollars and needless blood we are spilling in an effort to convince the world we are still a super power.

The debt ceiling? Another issue that seems to get more insurmountable every day. But is it really a problem? The congress rubber stamped increases in the debt ceiling as a matter of course for presidents from Regan on to Bush. Yet, somehow, the “debate” over the debt ceiling has taken on an ominous tone as the “tea party” branch of the republican party is stonewalling to get what they want on budget cuts and no taxes for the wealthy. As many have noted, they are holding the country hostage over an issue that is so obviously a political ploy that even rank and file republicans are starting to become disgusted. In short, they are making a problem where none exists.

“It’s embarrassing,” said a stock broker acquaintance of mine today. “The countries around the world are looking at the debt ceiling argument and shaking their heads in disbelief.” President Obama is fond of the phrase: “America’s vital interests.” If the threat of defaulting on our debts is not harmful to the nation’s vital interests I don’t know what is.

The Tea Party, anti-tax crowd is so bad at identifying what the problems in this country are it’s difficult not to come to the conclusion that they are actively trying to create problems instead of trying to solve them. I know that Eric Cantor and the other right wingers in the House of Representatives want to see Obama gone in 2012, but I think they really need to take a step back and ask themselves if they aren’t creating more problems for the country – and even for their rich constituents – than anything that could possibly occur if they just left well enough alone.

If anyone doubts that the debt ceiling is a bogus issue just consider the following: Suppose Obama holds a news conference tomorrow and says, “I’ve decided to replace Joe Biden with Eric Cantor. And I’m seriously considering packing it in in 2012 and turning the reins over to the Tea baggers.” If you think the debt ceiling would stay an issue for more than 2 seconds after that, then I have a conspiracy you’ll be sure to find interesting.

It involves the cover-up of a faked moon landing.

Tags: Cantor, certaindoubt, debt ceiling, election, government, moon landing, Obama, Politics, problems, republican, tea party, Thomas Vincent, Vincent
Posted in Daily Rant, Ethics, Politics, economics, government, media | No Comments »

Arguing With Cats

Friday, July 15th, 2011

Well it happened again. I was talking with a friend the other day and she said something like: “I have to watch them (Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly) so I know what the other side is thinking.”

I have heard this sentiment before from otherwise well-meaning liberals and progressives who are convinced that it is important to know “where they are coming from” before they can have a meaningful dialog with conservatives.

I believe this to be an error.

The moment you listen to Rush Limbaugh you have already lost the argument. The moment you start thinking in terms of giving the “other side” any kind of credit for having a valid position, you have conceded game set and match. Watching Fox News in order to win an argument with those who watch Fox news is like trying to argue with a roomful of cats. You can’t win. It is pointless to try.

Why?

Because the other side is not interested in meaningful dialog. They are not interested in being fair and balanced. They could care less about compromise. They are not interested in winning an argument with you. They view any exchange with you as a cage match knife fight and they have no intention of ceding that “you may have a valid point.” On anything.

Need an example?

Take the so called “birther” controversy. The whole notion that President Barrack Obama was not born in the United States and is thus not a legitimate president is ludicrous on its face. And while it may not have been started by mainstream republicans, the list of prominent political leaders – from Newt Gingrich to Sarah Palin – who jumped on this issue proves they are not interested in meaningful debate on what’s wrong with America and how to fix it. If they will hammer at the birther story, a crude attempt to win over converts by questioning the very origins of their opponent, and playing – not too subtly – on the predjudices and bigotry of the population, then it is obvious that they don’t care about fairness or logic or reason. They are only interested in winning.

Need further proof?

Consider the economy. On October 25, 2010 Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, (R-KY) in interview with the National Journal said:
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

There it is. The most important item on the republican agenda, is not jobs, or war, or even balancing the budget. No, the number one priority is getting rid of Obama. When faced with this type of bald faced absolutist statement, what is there left to discuss? When your opponent won’t even start debating the issues until you leave the stage, what’s the point in trying to learn where they are coming from?

McConnell repeated this sentiment the other day. When speaking about the so called “negotiations” on the debt ceiling he said: “I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable.”

These are not the words of someone who is interested in compromise. And anyone who parrots back incendiary language such as this is obviously not interested in compromise either. You don’t have to listen to Fox News analysis to understand where Mitch McConnell and the other republican leaders are coming from. They want Obama gone. Period. No discussion needed. It is useless to listen to the latest outrageous statement by Rush or Bill or any of the other talking heads. In their view, as long as Obama remains in office, there can be no discussion.

The main reason it is pointless to try and learn what the other side is thinking by listening to bloviators like Rush and company is that they are nothing more than tools. They are shills, hucksters, pitch-men. They are selling snake-oil from the back of a wagon. Listening to them in order to gain ammunition with which to do battle with your racist brother-in-law is like trying to figure out how to convince said brother-in-law Chevy trucks are no good by watching Chevy truck commercials.

The republican party is bankrupt of anything remotely resembling a plan for what to do to make the country better. Modern republicans are corrupt, and venal. Their “ideas” consist of warmed over Ayn Randianism that greed is good and that the wealthy deserve to amass as much wealth as they possibly can. And they hate anything that smacks of Government helping its citizens.

You can’t argue with this viewpoint. Understanding where they are coming from does you no good. You can’t win in a discussion because theirs is not a viewpoint so much as a belief system. Presenting evidence to support the validity of your viewpoint will not work against an evangelical zealot for free market capitalism. You will not win an argument against them and you will not be able to win an argument with anyone who listens to their Apostles.

Listening to right wing radio will not aid you in convincing anyone who listens to right wing radio that what they are hearing is bad. The mere fact that they are listening to Rush Limbaugh is proof they are not interested in debating you. They are already lost. You cannot save them.

Your only hope is to resist turning to the dark side yourself.

Tags: arguing with cats, birther, cats, certaindoubt, conservatives, Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, media, OReilly, Politics, republican party, republicans, Thomas Vincent, Vincent
Posted in Daily Rant, Politics, economics, government, media | No Comments »

Cognitive Dissonance

Thursday, July 7th, 2011

I love Wikipedia.

Time was when a University Professor with a string of letters came on the radio spewing forth obfuscating psychobabble I had nothing to fight back with. Now, through the miracle of the internet – specifically that grand field leveler known as “Wikipedia” – with a few clicks of a mouse and five minutes of scanning, I can tell in an instant whether the aforementioned academic egg-head has anything worth saying or is as full of hot air as the Montgolfier brothers’ famous balloon.

Occasionally, my Wikipedia habit produces insights that surprise even me.

This morning’s exercise began with an NPR radio spot where the host interviewed a University professor who had concluded a study on attitudes toward drinking among college students.

The academic raised the interesting statistic that most of the students who took part in the study played down the negative aspects to their alcohol consumption, even when those negatives were readily apparent. (Some examples of negatives the Professor cited were: throwing up, passing out, and urinating on oneself.)

Everything was clear in the interview until the Professor trotted out the term “cognitive dissonance” to describe what he was talking about. Cognitive dissonance? Give me a break.

As I said, before the internet, I would have no choice but to bang my head against the wall and admit that as a poor uneducated slob who slept through psychology 101 I couldn’t begin to pretend I knew what he was talking about. Now, however, through the wonders of Wikipedia, a quick Google search turned up the following:

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying.

Okay, instant comprehension. Eighteen-year olds downplay their negative experiences with alcohol because they’re in denial. No surprise there. Don’t need a college degree or a psychology study to see that one coming. The next paragraph, however, produced a rather startling “aha” moment.

People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This fact sheds light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.

The college drinkers deny that their behaviors have negative consequences because as humans they are hardwired to think that whatever choices they make – be it their choice in friends, the car they purchase or how much they drink – are the correct ones. If evidence to the contrary emerges – such as the irrefutable negatives associated with puking in the gutter or pissing one’s pants – cognitive dissonance theory predicts people are likely to reduce the uncomfortable feeling, not by changing their behavior, but by denying that the evidence exists.

Spread across the spectrum of human endeavor, Cognitive Dissonance indeed sheds light on some rather strange behavior.

In the stock market, it is a well known fact that people often stay invested in a stock long after it is obvious that it is toast. Like squirrels hanging onto a broken branch all the way to the ground, we follow the stock all the way to the cellar, Cognitive Dissonance tells us, because we are hard-wired not to admit we’ve made a mistake.

A woman who stays with an abusive husband is easily explained by the notion that the wife simply can’t bring herself to ease her discomfort over the evidence her mate is lower than pond slime because that would require her to admit she’d made a bad choice.

In politics, the theory of cognitive dissonance seems particularly appropriate. As voters, we tend to support the candidate we voted for long after it is obvious he or she is in no way living up to our expectations. We may feel bad, uncomfortable, even cheated, but we can’t accept the facts surrounding our disappointment because to do so would force us to admit that our voting decision had been a bad one.

Even when we do change our minds, CD theory indicates we often seek to make excuses or put the blame outside ourselves. Thus, “I lost money because I got bad investment advice,” or “Obama’s not doing what I’d hoped because of republicans in the House,” become mantras designed to avoid facing the reality that we simply voted in the wrong individual.

Okay, soapbox time:

I believe very strongly that success in life hinges at least in part on being honest with oneself. If you want to become great at anything, you simply can’t do it by lying to yourself, or coddling yourself, or refusing to admit when you have made an error. Thus, Cognitive Dissonance is something that everyone should be aware of in themselves. It is also something you should be aware of in those around you. Next time you see an investor blame his stockbroker for his failure to make money, or if you hear someone in an abusive relationship say, “he/she can’t help it,” or “I asked for it,” next time you hear someone express disappointment in an elected official, recognize that what they are really trying to do is ease their cognitive dissonance without recognizing that at least part of the cause of their discomfort lies within themselves.

As a voter, I’m horribly disappointed with Barrack Obama. In a surprising number of areas, from the economy, to war, to erosion of civil rights, and now his incipient caving on Social security and Medicare, I feel the President has not come close to fulfilling his inspiring promise of “change.” But if I am to be honest, I have to force myself to remember, no one put a gun to my head and said you have to vote for this man. In the next election, no one will be putting a gun to my head either. If I am disappointed in Barrack Obama, if I feel cognitive dissonance between my expectations for what I thought he would do and what he has actually done, I must remember that at least part of that unease over his presidency has to be attributed to the fact that my voting decision was, in fact, a bad one. It doesn’t matter that the alternative (McCain/Palin) was a horror show. I voted for Barack Obama. Lots of us did. If we are disappointed in his policies we have to remember we put him where he is.

The first step towards change is recognizing that the decisions we make are not always good ones. The first step towards correcting a mistake is admitting one’s role in that mistake.

Tags: binge drinking, certaindoubt, change, cognitive, Cognitive Dissonance, denial, dissonance, mistake, Obama, Politics, psychology, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, voting, wikipedia
Posted in Daily Rant, Politics, government, media | No Comments »

Turning the Corner

Sunday, June 26th, 2011

Turning the Corner

If ever there was an overused cliche, it has to be: “turning the corner.” Along with “the light at the end of the tunnel,” and “beginning a new chapter,” these stale chestnuts should be banned from any self respecting political speechwriter’s cupboard. And yet every day we are subjected to speeches in which we have “turned the corner” on fundraising, or winning an election, or even the economy and job creation.

Now, in a stunning display of mediocre speech writing, President Barack Obama has once again trotted out this tired, expired rhetorical horse and proceeded to flog it mercilessly, telling a group of soldiers at Fort Drum that America has indeed “turned the corner,” in Afghanistan.

That a Commander-in-Chief should grasp at straws when trying to boost the morale of troops – especially troops who are fighting a war that has been going on for ten years – is no surprise. However, the fact that Mr. Obama used the phrase almost in the same sentence as the one in which he informs those same troops they’ll have to keep fighting and killing, and dying – virtually forever – borders on the obscene. Telling soldiers we have turned the corner and then declaring only five thousand troops are coming home is like the pilot who tries to temper the bad news that the fourth engine has caught fire by saying: “but we’re making really great time.”

The war in Afghanistan is nowhere near over. We are nowhere near withdrawing our troops from the Middle East. Declaring the pitiful “drawdown” from Afghanistan as some kind of watershed moment in our invasion and occupation of that country is specious. It is an insult, both to the intelligence of the American people and the honor of those that serve in the armed forces.

Of course one can see how the visual of turning the corner would appeal to a politician who ran his last campaign on the promise of “change.” There are many kinds of corners, however. One wonders, just what sort of corner the president is referring to? Is it the sort of definitive absolute decision implied by taking the “exit only” ramp on the highway? Or is it more of a gradual turn that might morph into a chicane or “ess” curve, the kind that bends back around so we might actually wind up at the end of the day going in the same direction as we were when the whole debacle started.

Are we in a car? On foot? Or perhaps we’re on a train. This railroad image is particularly disturbing because of the implications of inevitability. For many trains, coming around the bend tends to be a more or less constant condition:

And of course as any engineer can tell you, it doesn’t matter how many corners you turn; if the bridge is out, you’re still headed for disaster.

By signaling that he plans to withdraw only 10,000 troops this year and maybe 20,000 more by 2014, the President hardly seems to be implying the kind of sharp turn that so many American’s – and presumably the soldiers as well – were hoping for. Ultimately, what may be needed in Afghanistan is not to turn the corner, but to turn completely around and head back in the other direction. That was what many of us thought Candidate Obama was referring to with his rhetorical eloquence calling for change and hope.

Apparently with regard to war at least, the change Mr. Obama visualized had less to do with reversing direction even significantly altering our course. The only corner president Obama seems intent on turning is the one in his imagination. For the rest of us it’s full steam ahead and damn the missing trestle.

Tags: afghanistan, certaindoubt, cliche, Drawdown, Obama, Politics, railroads, Thomas Vincent, turning the corner, Vincent, war
Posted in Daily Rant, Politics, government, warfare | No Comments »

<< Previous Next >>

  • Categories

    • Daily Doubt (49)
    • Daily Rant (47)
    • economics (39)
    • Ethics (53)
    • government (25)
    • humor (13)
    • law (20)
    • media (33)
    • Politics (92)
    • satire (5)
    • technology (4)
    • Uncategorized (31)
    • warfare (36)
  • Other Writings

    • Book Reviews
  • Blogroll

    • Antiwar.com
    • Aphelion Webzine
    • Daily Kos
    • Freaking News
    • imgur
    • Impermanent Media
    • Olympia Newswire
    • Photobucket
    • Real Change Newspaper
    • The Ethical Spectacle
    • The Real News
  • Networking Sites

    • Digg.com
    • Reddit
  • News Sites

    • Antiwar.com
    • Common Dreams
    • Freaking News
    • Olympia Newswire
    • Raw Story
    • Wikileaks
  • Archives

    • March 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
  • Admin

    • Log in
    • Entries RSS
    • Comments RSS
    • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2012 - Certain Doubt | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)

WordPress theme designed by web design