Last Sunday David Gregory interviewed the Nation’s new House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on Meet the Press. I was pleasantly surprised to see him appropriately aggressive in trying to extract answers from Leader Cantor. It’s not that the responses Cantor provided were notably more off point than many other politicians might deliver. It was simply more noticeable to me because I was listening - primarily because I happen to live in the District which has the ignominious honor of placing Cantor in Office.
Fortunately I happen to have a memory of inconceivable depth and, with only minor paraphrasing, can reconstruct the entire interview for those of you who missed the show. So here it is; Rep Eric Cantor (R-VA) meets the press, January 23rd 2011:
MR. GREGORY: Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
REP. ERIC CANTOR: Good morning, David.
MR. GREGORY: Everybody's talking about the State of the Union address, and the president is already previewing it. Being competitive, in his mind, also means some additional targeted spending in some areas to make America competitive, as well as cuts, as well as dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I'm, I'm really interested to see and hear what the president has to say. I heard him in a news conference talking about cutting back on the White House menu. I believe he was introducing some low cost Kenyan dishes. We applaud his thrift, yet still have no disagreement with some spending to comply with his ethnic leanings.
MR. GREGORY: But he's saying now there's got to be a combination of some spending to keep America competitive, and also cuts dealing with the deficit. Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR: What we've said is our Congress is going to be a cut and grow Congress; if you want to grow asparagus, David, you know you have to cut them to the root for the first 2 or 3 years.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
REP. CANTOR: When the president talks about competitiveness, sure, we want America to be competitive. But how does that equate to jobs jobs jobs? If we can’t eliminate Obamanistic regulations every pool boy in the nation, so to speak, could find themselves out of work.
MR. GREGORY: Right. Well, well, let's just be clear. You don't believe that there's a balance that you have to get right in terms of investing in the economy to help it innovate, to become more competitive. That's not a vision you agree with.
REP. CANTOR: David, where--what I would say is the investment needs to occur in the private sector. Doesn’t it make sense to end the egregious taxes on the wealth builders of the nation…say those with net taxable income of $500,000 and over, who are struggling to make America the land the of Free? Wouldn’t it make more sense instead to have a national sales tax on food and strike a blow against obesity?
MR. GREGORY: Right. OK, well, let's, let's pick up where Republicans have left off. Cut and grow, that's the mantra. You campaigned on a pledge to America last September, and this is a part of what you said "We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year." And then you came into office and you said, "Well, we're not going to hit that $100 billion figure."
REP. CANTOR: David, let, let's step back a minute and look at sort of the whole sort of continuum of the spending challenges. We're, we're going to really have three bites at the apple here as far as approaching reducing spending and the size of Washington. I mean apples are apples.
MR. GREGORY: Right. But $100 billion, or not $100 billion?
REP. CANTOR: And, and we've committed to say $100 billion in reductions. We are intent on making sure, on an annualized basis, that we are hitting the '08 levels or below.
MR. GREGORY: It seems like it's a straightforward question, though. Are you going to live up to the $100 billion pledge? I assume you've put a lot of thought into that...
REP. CANTOR: David...
MR. GREGORY: ...$100 billion figure. Can you make it or not?
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. On an annualized basis, we will cut spending $100 billion. Did you hear me: ANN-U-AL-LIZED.
MR. GREGORY: Which means what exactly?
REP. CANTOR: It’s simple David. You take the savings on the first day times 365, add in potential savings projected over the remaining term of this Congress, subtract all non-budgetary defense spending, multiply by the percentage of homes in foreclosure relative to the number of housing starts, and divide by 11.
MR. GREGORY: Right. You talk about the debt, its passing $14 trillion. This is what you said in The Washington Post: "`It's a leverage moment for Republicans. The president needs us. There are things we were elected to do. Let's accomplish those if that the president needs us to clean up the old mess.” I want you to be specific here. What's the leverage moment?
REP. CANTOR: Well, let, let me be clear, David. Republicans are not going to vote for this increase in the debt limit unless there are serious tax cuts, and some damned impressive spending cuts as well.
MR. GREGORY: Like what?
REP. CANTOR: I mean--and, and that is just the way it is, OK?
MR. GREGORY: Right. But you don't have--if you say serious spending cuts, you clearly have--don't have something specific in mind, right? You--in other words, you'll, you'll know it when you see it, is that the approach?
REP. CANTOR: No, no, that's not true. When my grandmother used to make pies during the holidays, any cutbacks in fruit didn’t detract from the joy of the season.
MR. GREGORY: But let's deal with the--you're not tackling entitlements. What about defense? Is defense on the table, defense cuts on the table? Do they have to be?
REP. CANTOR: I'll get to entitlements in a second if you want.
MR. GREGORY: OK.
REP. CANTOR: But I can tell you, we've always said this, too: We put everything on the table; glasses, silverware, napkins…no one sets a table like the Young Guns.
MR. GREGORY: Including defense cuts.
REP. CANTOR: I said Young Guns, didn’t I?
MR. GREGORY: OK. But look at The Wall Street Journal, the piece by Dick Armey of Freedom Works, the tea party group. He said "Let's scrap the Departments of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development, end farm subsidies, and end urban mass transit grants, just for starters." Would those be on the table?
REP. CANTOR: Everything, David, is on the table. Salt…pepper…
MR. GREGORY: Cancer research is on the table.
REP. CANTOR: …table cloth, condiments…I can’t be more clear.
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about Social Security. Are you prepared to raise the retirement age, means test benefits or, in another way, seriously tackle the entitlement of Social Security?
REP. CANTOR: David, what we have said is we've got a serious fiscal train wreck coming for this country if we don't deal with these entitlements. Let’s face it. We have to get these people off the gravy train. Now, for me, the first entitlement we need to deal with is the healthcare bill, is the Obamacare bill, you know.
MR. GREGORY: All right, we'll get to health care. I asked you about Social Security, though.
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely.
MR. GREGORY: Well, what are you willing to do? Means test benefits, raise the retirement age?
REP. CANTOR: David, we've got plenty of old Republicans in Congress right now receiving Social Security. This is not an issue that doesn’t hold potential sacrifice.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
REP. CANTOR: Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and I wrote a book together, and in that book we reserved a chapter for a discussion about Social Security, about Medicare, and how we can begin to at least discuss to do that. It’s called The Young Guns and it’s available on-line at Amazon and all national bookstore chains or can be purchased directly from my website at ericcantor.gov.
MR. GREGORY: But what are you for? Leader, I'm asking you what you what you're for.
REP. CANTOR: Well, what, what I'm telling you we're for, is we're for an active discussion to see what we can come together and do. We’ve written it all down. In fact, here’s a copy I brought for you…
MR. GREGORY: How long do we need to discuss Social Security and what is happening? It's been discussed for years.
REP. CANTOR: David, please…read the book. I suggest you ask your friends to buy a copy for themselves as well.
MR. GREGORY: All right, let, let's, let's move on to health care because House Republicans did repeal the president's healthcare reform plan, but the real question is what Republicans are prepared to replace it with and whether you have a serious plan. The truth is, Republicans do not have a serious alternative to covering more Americans, do they?
REP. CANTOR: I disagree with that, obviously, David. First of all, you know, we believe you can do better in health care. I mean, we want to try and address the situation so more folks can have coverage, can, can have the kind of care that they want. Obamanistic socialized government control of doctors, where panels of Kenyan and Mexican bureaucratic green card holders decide if Grandma is ready for the Ice Flow is hardly the American way of doing things.
MR. GREGORY: But, Leader, you're talking about bringing down costs. If you were serious about this, why not negotiate with Democrats in areas where you could deliver Republican votes?
REP. CANTOR: David, the problem is if we're all really desirous of trying to deal with people who are in need and want to improve the healthcare future for this country, you, you can't start with a Washington-controlled system. That's the structure of Obamacare. It’s not Americare. They don’t put the word “free” in free-enterprise for no reason at all.
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you a little about politics. Do you think, as 40 percent in our recent poll thought, the president's become a moderate. Do you agree with that?
REP. CANTOR: Well, I think actions speak louder than words. Let’s just see how enthusiastically he supports our positions before we call him a moderate.
MR. GREGORY: There's been a lot of talk about discourse, about how you all can get along a little bit better and do it a little bit more civilly. And I wonder, this is the leadership moment here, OK? There are elements of this country who question the president's citizenship, who think that it--his birth certificate is inauthentic. Will you call that what it is, which is crazy talk?
REP. CANTOR: David, you know, I mean, a lot of that has been an, an issue sort of generated by not only the media, but others in the country. Most Americans really are beyond that, and they want us to focus...
MR. GREGORY: Right. Is somebody bringing that up just engaging in crazy talk?
REP. CANTOR: Well, David, I, I don't think it's, it's nice to call anyone crazy, OK?
MR. GREGORY: All right. Is it a legitimate or an illegitimate issue?
REP. CANTOR: And--so I don't think it's an issue that we need to address at all. President Obama being fathered by a Kenyan national, born under mysterious circumstances, supposedly in Hawaii, has no place in Congressional debate.
MR. GREGORY: I mean, I feel like there's a lot of Republican leaders who don't want to go as far as to criticize those folks.
REP. CANTOR: No. I think the president's a citizen of the United States.
MR. GREGORY: Period.
REP. CANTOR: So what--yes. Why, why is it that you want me to go and engage in name-calling? I think he's a citizen of the United States…as far as I can tell.
MR. GREGORY: Fair enough. Is the tea party a difficult crosscurrent in the Republican Party to manage right now?
REP. CANTOR: Perhaps. I've always said this. The tea party--first of all, the acronym for ‘Tea’ is "Taxed enough already" and the acronym for ‘Party’ is “People assisting Republican tax yodeling”. So the tea party has come in and said enough taxing already.
MR. GREGORY: So you think the tea party's here to stay?
REP. CANTOR: Absolutely. Do the carnivals still show up every Independence Day weekend?
MR. GREGORY: Right. Leader, more to do but we're out of time.
REP. CANTOR: Thanks, David.
MR. GREGORY: Thank you very much for being here.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Game of Concentration
Sunday I successfully managed to absorb the better part of six hours watching the professional football conference championships. The previous weekend I could claim nearly double that amount of time watching four playoff games. As a football game is only 60 minutes, which includes much of the players standing around time, huddling, and forming at the line of scrimmage, etc., it makes one wonder just what holds my attention so well? Now I like pro football a lot, and there are numerous moments of excitement or potential excitement in every game…but six hours is six hours.
I have watched two or three football games at one friend’s house. As we watch them he has the strategy of muting the TV during most commercials. I generally found this action mildly annoying and I’m guessing that a lot of people might immediately nod their heads in agreement. However, as I later thought about it, I became curious as to why such action should bother me at all. You see, I generally and deeply dislike commercials. If they were all like the E*TRADE baby ads, well…then my opinion might be different, but they’re not, far from it. Commercials utilize methods as those that now dominate television, movies, and (in an interactive way) video games. They employ a rapid fire change of visuals done in such a way as to make the viewer unaware that it is happening at all. Increasingly televised sporting events are adopting it, often making comprehension of the live action dependent on the instant replay.
It wasn’t always that way. In its first couple of decades television programs tried to emulate live theater, as it had neither the technology nor resources to reproduce what was being done in the film industry. In fact, a majority of early television was live and that style carried on for some time after the development of economical taping. Something changed since then and it was probably driven by advertising. Now to hold a view’s attention the visual field has to be constantly changing. I don’t believe people needed that assistance, but it works. More likely advertisers figured out that if they lost a viewer’s attention during a one minute commercial they'd lose money. This dilemma was only magnified when commercials became predominantly 30 seconds, then 15 seconds.
What is even more fascinating is how this dynamic spilled over into television programming and movies. Expectations changed. People changed. Now more and more, those that conclude what people like in these mediums use these techniques. For example, not only do we see rapid visual changes in movies, but some film makers have determined that viewers like the idea of unsteady visuals, where the camera image flies around like it’s being videotaped by somebody’s grandmother. Although they argue that such scenes are supposed to make the film appear more realistic, what’s really happening is that visuals are being converted into a nearly constant flow of change. How many people walk around and view the world that way with their eyes. Our sight doesn’t work that way, even as we look around. It’s as realistic as love on The Bachelor.
Sometime when you’re watching almost any program or commercial on television (but especially if you’re watching “reality” TV), count out loud each time the visual field changes on the screen. The numbers you’ll pile up in a given minute is eye opening. If you do it during a political commercial it’s a bit like trying to count corn kernels popping in a microwave.
So why is it when the sound was turned off during a commercial did I react negatively? I thought it might be just the logistics of turning it on and off and monitoring when to do it. No, that wasn’t it. I concluded it was because I continued to stare at the soundless flashes of scenes, but found my media concentration was compromised by the lack of commentary which acts like a glue. For those minutes, I was stuck between two realities, that which controls my concentration and everything else that exists in the present moment outside the screen. Stuck between the two of anything can be annoying, or at the very least uncomfortable.
Many a parent has berated their offspring that the television they watch is a mindless activity, even as the parents install televisions in nearly every room of the house. I’m sure I said such things too, even without the extra sets. But now I believe that television as it has developed, along with other types of media, actually immerses the viewer into extraordinary levels of concentration. Commercials in particular mesmerize the viewer. Try to face a room full of television watchers during a commercial break and you might as well be staring at the eyes of born-again Baptists watching a pole dance. This is not the lack of concentration, just the opposite; our thought patterns become those of the commercial. It’s much more akin to a Vulcan mind-meld…and it’s addicting.
It has been suggested that the increased use of machine gun images, which as I mentioned includes video games, corresponds with the unexplained national increase in Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and that there might be a connection. Perhaps...it kind of makes sense. However, what I believe we do know is that the contentment we feel when we surrender our endless and often concentrated thoughts to the actions we perform (losing ourselves into the moment of our activities) is given up to our media watching…even if it’s just in time alone. Further, the ease in which this concentration takes place temporarily relieves us of the natural anxiety that comes from wasting our time.
To concentrate is defined as to focus one’s attention. We all struggle to keep that focus rewarding. However, when it comes to the game of concentration, winning is stacked in favor of the house…or should I say set.
I have watched two or three football games at one friend’s house. As we watch them he has the strategy of muting the TV during most commercials. I generally found this action mildly annoying and I’m guessing that a lot of people might immediately nod their heads in agreement. However, as I later thought about it, I became curious as to why such action should bother me at all. You see, I generally and deeply dislike commercials. If they were all like the E*TRADE baby ads, well…then my opinion might be different, but they’re not, far from it. Commercials utilize methods as those that now dominate television, movies, and (in an interactive way) video games. They employ a rapid fire change of visuals done in such a way as to make the viewer unaware that it is happening at all. Increasingly televised sporting events are adopting it, often making comprehension of the live action dependent on the instant replay.
It wasn’t always that way. In its first couple of decades television programs tried to emulate live theater, as it had neither the technology nor resources to reproduce what was being done in the film industry. In fact, a majority of early television was live and that style carried on for some time after the development of economical taping. Something changed since then and it was probably driven by advertising. Now to hold a view’s attention the visual field has to be constantly changing. I don’t believe people needed that assistance, but it works. More likely advertisers figured out that if they lost a viewer’s attention during a one minute commercial they'd lose money. This dilemma was only magnified when commercials became predominantly 30 seconds, then 15 seconds.
What is even more fascinating is how this dynamic spilled over into television programming and movies. Expectations changed. People changed. Now more and more, those that conclude what people like in these mediums use these techniques. For example, not only do we see rapid visual changes in movies, but some film makers have determined that viewers like the idea of unsteady visuals, where the camera image flies around like it’s being videotaped by somebody’s grandmother. Although they argue that such scenes are supposed to make the film appear more realistic, what’s really happening is that visuals are being converted into a nearly constant flow of change. How many people walk around and view the world that way with their eyes. Our sight doesn’t work that way, even as we look around. It’s as realistic as love on The Bachelor.
Sometime when you’re watching almost any program or commercial on television (but especially if you’re watching “reality” TV), count out loud each time the visual field changes on the screen. The numbers you’ll pile up in a given minute is eye opening. If you do it during a political commercial it’s a bit like trying to count corn kernels popping in a microwave.
So why is it when the sound was turned off during a commercial did I react negatively? I thought it might be just the logistics of turning it on and off and monitoring when to do it. No, that wasn’t it. I concluded it was because I continued to stare at the soundless flashes of scenes, but found my media concentration was compromised by the lack of commentary which acts like a glue. For those minutes, I was stuck between two realities, that which controls my concentration and everything else that exists in the present moment outside the screen. Stuck between the two of anything can be annoying, or at the very least uncomfortable.
Many a parent has berated their offspring that the television they watch is a mindless activity, even as the parents install televisions in nearly every room of the house. I’m sure I said such things too, even without the extra sets. But now I believe that television as it has developed, along with other types of media, actually immerses the viewer into extraordinary levels of concentration. Commercials in particular mesmerize the viewer. Try to face a room full of television watchers during a commercial break and you might as well be staring at the eyes of born-again Baptists watching a pole dance. This is not the lack of concentration, just the opposite; our thought patterns become those of the commercial. It’s much more akin to a Vulcan mind-meld…and it’s addicting.
It has been suggested that the increased use of machine gun images, which as I mentioned includes video games, corresponds with the unexplained national increase in Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and that there might be a connection. Perhaps...it kind of makes sense. However, what I believe we do know is that the contentment we feel when we surrender our endless and often concentrated thoughts to the actions we perform (losing ourselves into the moment of our activities) is given up to our media watching…even if it’s just in time alone. Further, the ease in which this concentration takes place temporarily relieves us of the natural anxiety that comes from wasting our time.
To concentrate is defined as to focus one’s attention. We all struggle to keep that focus rewarding. However, when it comes to the game of concentration, winning is stacked in favor of the house…or should I say set.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Irresistibly Dumb
For about 25 years, with some minor gaps in time, I have had a full beard. For no particular reason every 7 or 8 years I might shave it off for a brief period or modify it in some fashion. Each time I would be fascinated that, upon arriving at my office, people who worked closely with me would not initially notice its absence. Conversely, those I saw infrequently would pipe right up and usually register an exclamation of sorts (maybe fright). My wife once went weeks without grasping that I had reduced my full beard down to a goatee, only realizing it when my daughter arrived from out of town and pointed it out. “Did you do that this morning?” she observed matter-of-factly. “No dear…3 weeks ago”. “Oh…”
Now I suppose one might assume I am an individual (or husband) who doesn’t cast a shadow. As my girth has expanded over the years, that’s actually an appealing thought. However, regardless the occasional periods of invisibility, I believe for the most part my existence is recognized (even by my family, albeit with mortification at times). I would prefer to consider that as we get to know someone well, outer appearances, especially those that rarely change, do become somewhat invisible. It’s not the beauty in the eye of the beholder concept, which incorporates a bunch of subjectivities. I actually think it is something less tangible, somewhat behavioral, and actually taps into the metaphysical; an ability to become aware of the true individual, outside our senses.
Perception is not reality, regardless what the business people may tell you, although that certainly works for business. I recall someone suggesting that an alien viewing the earth from space might conclude that dogs ruled the world; how else could they lead people around by leashes and have them pick up their poop. Perception by definition (at least Merriam-Webster’s definition) relates to concepts and cognition. We take in information then cognitively draw conclusions. Yet how we view someone else, by recognizing their inner being (if you will), results in conclusions that are more identifiable by our own behavior. Generally our thinking mind makes mincemeat of the awareness that might naturally emerge in its absence. There are, though, obvious situations that can be seen through the clutter.
All this relates to topics that have been written and reflected on for three thousand years, give or take, i.e.; the branch of philosophy we call metaphysics. There is, though, one menial aspect of it that peaked my interest lately, that being how we find another person attractive (or unattractive) without consideration of their physical appearance. What are we really seeing, if not the beard or goatee?
Aren’t you joyfully amazed at the many stories told of individuals with coarse physical handicaps who are able to find mates and social acceptance? I took upon myself to conduct a massive survey on the subject of attractiveness….I asked four people two questions (I’m still waiting for my grant). I asked them to tell me what three things they find most attractive in an individual without regard to how that person looked. Happily I got a 100% common response on two characteristics (what… they predict elections with that kind of return from 4 people!). One characteristic was humor, and the other (in so many words) was confidence. No big surprise on either. I followed up with a question of how they defined confidence (which is what I was shooting for from the beginning). The response was the same (again in so many words). They explained that it was confidence that person had in themselves and in what they knew. I have my doubts.
No mystery that confidence is extraordinarily attractive. However, my observations have led me to believe that there are individuals who are extremely confident in what they know who are hardly attractive. In extreme cases such people may take on the ignominious title of bull shitter, even if much of what they espouse contains truth. Why do such individuals fail to exact magnetic appeal if confidence normally creates the opposite polarity? Does confidence need to be silent? I don’t think so, how can it be? Does it even need a deep knowledge base at all? Perhaps not.
I have tried to gauge my feelings about other individuals in the light of this contradiction and have concluded thus. Those individuals whose understanding of the world makes them attractive are those who have a deep seated comfort in what he or she doesn’t know, not in what they do know. It’s not easy to do, but it does happen in varying degrees with a lot of people. This might explain reverence for some older individuals, since wisdom as a result of age often relates to an understanding of limitations and temporality.
So I’ve concluded it’s the confidence of what you don’t know, moreover being confident with the insignificance of your knowledge that exacts the attraction. Essentially the dumber you comfortably feel with yourself the greater the draw. Now I wouldn’t suggest that my son take the position that to score with chicks he needs to point out how little he reads. It really has very little to do with knowledge at all. We can absorb great quantities of information, but unless we can embrace that what we absorb doesn’t represent a quarks worth of what exists outside our senses and thoughts, I’m afraid we run the risk of having the intellectual equivalent of bad breath.
Now I suppose one might assume I am an individual (or husband) who doesn’t cast a shadow. As my girth has expanded over the years, that’s actually an appealing thought. However, regardless the occasional periods of invisibility, I believe for the most part my existence is recognized (even by my family, albeit with mortification at times). I would prefer to consider that as we get to know someone well, outer appearances, especially those that rarely change, do become somewhat invisible. It’s not the beauty in the eye of the beholder concept, which incorporates a bunch of subjectivities. I actually think it is something less tangible, somewhat behavioral, and actually taps into the metaphysical; an ability to become aware of the true individual, outside our senses.
Perception is not reality, regardless what the business people may tell you, although that certainly works for business. I recall someone suggesting that an alien viewing the earth from space might conclude that dogs ruled the world; how else could they lead people around by leashes and have them pick up their poop. Perception by definition (at least Merriam-Webster’s definition) relates to concepts and cognition. We take in information then cognitively draw conclusions. Yet how we view someone else, by recognizing their inner being (if you will), results in conclusions that are more identifiable by our own behavior. Generally our thinking mind makes mincemeat of the awareness that might naturally emerge in its absence. There are, though, obvious situations that can be seen through the clutter.
All this relates to topics that have been written and reflected on for three thousand years, give or take, i.e.; the branch of philosophy we call metaphysics. There is, though, one menial aspect of it that peaked my interest lately, that being how we find another person attractive (or unattractive) without consideration of their physical appearance. What are we really seeing, if not the beard or goatee?
Aren’t you joyfully amazed at the many stories told of individuals with coarse physical handicaps who are able to find mates and social acceptance? I took upon myself to conduct a massive survey on the subject of attractiveness….I asked four people two questions (I’m still waiting for my grant). I asked them to tell me what three things they find most attractive in an individual without regard to how that person looked. Happily I got a 100% common response on two characteristics (what… they predict elections with that kind of return from 4 people!). One characteristic was humor, and the other (in so many words) was confidence. No big surprise on either. I followed up with a question of how they defined confidence (which is what I was shooting for from the beginning). The response was the same (again in so many words). They explained that it was confidence that person had in themselves and in what they knew. I have my doubts.
No mystery that confidence is extraordinarily attractive. However, my observations have led me to believe that there are individuals who are extremely confident in what they know who are hardly attractive. In extreme cases such people may take on the ignominious title of bull shitter, even if much of what they espouse contains truth. Why do such individuals fail to exact magnetic appeal if confidence normally creates the opposite polarity? Does confidence need to be silent? I don’t think so, how can it be? Does it even need a deep knowledge base at all? Perhaps not.
I have tried to gauge my feelings about other individuals in the light of this contradiction and have concluded thus. Those individuals whose understanding of the world makes them attractive are those who have a deep seated comfort in what he or she doesn’t know, not in what they do know. It’s not easy to do, but it does happen in varying degrees with a lot of people. This might explain reverence for some older individuals, since wisdom as a result of age often relates to an understanding of limitations and temporality.
So I’ve concluded it’s the confidence of what you don’t know, moreover being confident with the insignificance of your knowledge that exacts the attraction. Essentially the dumber you comfortably feel with yourself the greater the draw. Now I wouldn’t suggest that my son take the position that to score with chicks he needs to point out how little he reads. It really has very little to do with knowledge at all. We can absorb great quantities of information, but unless we can embrace that what we absorb doesn’t represent a quarks worth of what exists outside our senses and thoughts, I’m afraid we run the risk of having the intellectual equivalent of bad breath.
Monday, January 10, 2011
It Isn't About the Fringe
The fact that Christine Taylor Green was born on September 11, 2001 is purely coincidental to the tragedy that took her life in Tucson, Arizona. And yet the relevance of those two events is so compelling that it is difficult not to think of the end of her short life as some kind of dark metaphor.
In the round table discussions that are part of the Sunday news circuit, the conversations were the same from show to show and, further, they explored ground that has been so trampled on at this point that it might as well be concrete. Pundits and officials of varying political persuasions resurrected the usual dialogue on how polarized and vitriolic the social and political views of the nation have become. They talked about how leaders need to “tone down the rhetoric” so that this kind of thing “won’t happen again”. Their focus was on the tragedy itself, including the assault on high officials of the US Government, and for good reason. It’s because focusing on the event itself is just so, so easy to do. Those discussing the problem of “polarization” speak as if elimination of the lunatic fringe would solve the problem. Politicians and pundits alike don’t want to face the real dilemma. To do so would be like asking Homer Simpson to give up his doughnuts.
The shooting in Tucson was not unlike other similar events that have occurred (and in a practical sense forgotten) over the past couple of decades. They have simply been responses from the lunatic fringe to a much greater uncoordinated conspiracy, and should be expected. The major response to this event will probably be the same as with prior events; huge analysis of psychiatric resources, lots of finger pointing, and increased security, even though the specific event has little impact on safety of the nation. Virtually nothing will be done, or even suggested (at levels that would make a difference) about the real problem. The tragic event is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
It is already clear, thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, that Jared Lee Loughner was mentally imbalanced and burdened with (among other things) a consistent torment; that the Government (the United States or otherwise) represents a malevolent force separate and in conflict with his perception of a free individual. In his world undoubtedly, being free meant not being in a state of torment. In Arizona he will receive the death penalty instead of life imprisonment because, incredibly, he will not be considered insane.
Loughner, like other displays of insanity from people like Timothy McVeigh, are the top of a sponge like iceberg, soaking up the relentless and aggressive rhetoric of pundits and politicians of post-Reagan Conservatism. It is born of an acceptance by both Conservative and Liberal extremes that freedom of communication means an absence of public control over the means of communication. It is fed by mercantile powers that ultimately control those means and stand to benefit from a lack of diversity. Today it is the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Rupert Murdocks, and dozens like them who are driving the frenzy. It could have been some radical left wing nuts turning the screw on the nation’s psyche (as some try), but today the big nuts are turning right.
The tragedy in Tucson is heart wrenchingly unfortunate, but the real damage from an iceberg is caused by what’s below the surface and this current iceberg is getting huge.
Interestingly we can actually identify a date when this began. As an aftermath of World War 2 the Truman Administration, with bipartisan support, recognized that unregulated control of public communication was the very thing that allowed the special interests to effectively limit information in a large industrial society. The then compelling example was of the Nazi Party’s influence over public communications in Germany in the 1930s. In 1949 the Fairness Doctrine became part of the FCC’s operation, passing judicial muster along the way. It was not a law, but a policy or regulation over public airways. It required that in order to have a license to broadcast a station must present contrasting viewpoints on matters of public interest. Under the guise of freedom of speech the Reagan Administration directed its FCC chairman, Mark Fowler, to end the policy in August 1987. By August 1988 Rush Limbaugh started broadcasting his anti-Government sputum daily, soon joined by others, making hundreds of millions of dollars. Those who found enjoyment in the mindless vitriol could happily listen or watch nothing else.
With only some minor exceptions, our political leadership has not addressed the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it. Most are content to preserve their jobs by not risking the label of being anti-First Amendment. Few, if any, are willing to address the extraordinary power of mass communication over a largely unsophisticated and uneducated population of 300 million people. For 38 years our leaders and our nation saw and accepted the advantages of regulation requiring diversity. Conversely, since then, the advantages of unregulated uniformity have been accepted and enjoyed by a relative few. The similarities to an unregulated financial system are profound, and how many lives will end or be ruined, totally unnoticed, by our inane for-profit healthcare system because the lies perpetuated about it can continue unchallenged? Is it possible the recognition that the American people and the American Government are an inseparable whole been lost? Maybe so.
The tragedy of the September 11th attack in New York and Washington was indisputably the result of myopic brainwashing within the Muslim world. The vast majority of Muslims would not have participated or condoned the attack, but they are more than comfortable with listening to the endless condemnation of the United States and other non-Muslim nations as their antagonists. The lunatic tip of their iceberg is pretty big. But make no mistake about it. The insanity that destroyed the Trade Center in New York and that which killed Christine Taylor Green grew from the same seed. Perhaps this little life might become a window to see the truth.
In the round table discussions that are part of the Sunday news circuit, the conversations were the same from show to show and, further, they explored ground that has been so trampled on at this point that it might as well be concrete. Pundits and officials of varying political persuasions resurrected the usual dialogue on how polarized and vitriolic the social and political views of the nation have become. They talked about how leaders need to “tone down the rhetoric” so that this kind of thing “won’t happen again”. Their focus was on the tragedy itself, including the assault on high officials of the US Government, and for good reason. It’s because focusing on the event itself is just so, so easy to do. Those discussing the problem of “polarization” speak as if elimination of the lunatic fringe would solve the problem. Politicians and pundits alike don’t want to face the real dilemma. To do so would be like asking Homer Simpson to give up his doughnuts.
The shooting in Tucson was not unlike other similar events that have occurred (and in a practical sense forgotten) over the past couple of decades. They have simply been responses from the lunatic fringe to a much greater uncoordinated conspiracy, and should be expected. The major response to this event will probably be the same as with prior events; huge analysis of psychiatric resources, lots of finger pointing, and increased security, even though the specific event has little impact on safety of the nation. Virtually nothing will be done, or even suggested (at levels that would make a difference) about the real problem. The tragic event is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
It is already clear, thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, that Jared Lee Loughner was mentally imbalanced and burdened with (among other things) a consistent torment; that the Government (the United States or otherwise) represents a malevolent force separate and in conflict with his perception of a free individual. In his world undoubtedly, being free meant not being in a state of torment. In Arizona he will receive the death penalty instead of life imprisonment because, incredibly, he will not be considered insane.
Loughner, like other displays of insanity from people like Timothy McVeigh, are the top of a sponge like iceberg, soaking up the relentless and aggressive rhetoric of pundits and politicians of post-Reagan Conservatism. It is born of an acceptance by both Conservative and Liberal extremes that freedom of communication means an absence of public control over the means of communication. It is fed by mercantile powers that ultimately control those means and stand to benefit from a lack of diversity. Today it is the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Rupert Murdocks, and dozens like them who are driving the frenzy. It could have been some radical left wing nuts turning the screw on the nation’s psyche (as some try), but today the big nuts are turning right.
The tragedy in Tucson is heart wrenchingly unfortunate, but the real damage from an iceberg is caused by what’s below the surface and this current iceberg is getting huge.
Interestingly we can actually identify a date when this began. As an aftermath of World War 2 the Truman Administration, with bipartisan support, recognized that unregulated control of public communication was the very thing that allowed the special interests to effectively limit information in a large industrial society. The then compelling example was of the Nazi Party’s influence over public communications in Germany in the 1930s. In 1949 the Fairness Doctrine became part of the FCC’s operation, passing judicial muster along the way. It was not a law, but a policy or regulation over public airways. It required that in order to have a license to broadcast a station must present contrasting viewpoints on matters of public interest. Under the guise of freedom of speech the Reagan Administration directed its FCC chairman, Mark Fowler, to end the policy in August 1987. By August 1988 Rush Limbaugh started broadcasting his anti-Government sputum daily, soon joined by others, making hundreds of millions of dollars. Those who found enjoyment in the mindless vitriol could happily listen or watch nothing else.
With only some minor exceptions, our political leadership has not addressed the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it. Most are content to preserve their jobs by not risking the label of being anti-First Amendment. Few, if any, are willing to address the extraordinary power of mass communication over a largely unsophisticated and uneducated population of 300 million people. For 38 years our leaders and our nation saw and accepted the advantages of regulation requiring diversity. Conversely, since then, the advantages of unregulated uniformity have been accepted and enjoyed by a relative few. The similarities to an unregulated financial system are profound, and how many lives will end or be ruined, totally unnoticed, by our inane for-profit healthcare system because the lies perpetuated about it can continue unchallenged? Is it possible the recognition that the American people and the American Government are an inseparable whole been lost? Maybe so.
The tragedy of the September 11th attack in New York and Washington was indisputably the result of myopic brainwashing within the Muslim world. The vast majority of Muslims would not have participated or condoned the attack, but they are more than comfortable with listening to the endless condemnation of the United States and other non-Muslim nations as their antagonists. The lunatic tip of their iceberg is pretty big. But make no mistake about it. The insanity that destroyed the Trade Center in New York and that which killed Christine Taylor Green grew from the same seed. Perhaps this little life might become a window to see the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
