The owner of the Arizona gun store who publicly posted that Obama voters can go ahead and shop elsewhere is within his rights as a private business owner to sell to whom he wishes to sell and to publicly announce this. Places of business do this all the time.
Restaurants routinely require patrons to dress appropriately: "No shoes, no shirt, no service" is a sign we've all seen. If a testy customer gets too cranky about a returned purchase or some perceived slight at a Target store, he or she can be asked to leave, and any Target store manager can rightfully do this.
But the underlying issue that the gun store owner is trying to address is the perception that the Obama administration --- which did nothing during its first term to affect the 2nd amendment rights of anyone and in fact increased those rights by allowing gun owners to take their guns into national parks and onto trains --- will probably do something in its second term to affect the 2nd Amendment rights of everyone.
But the fact of the matter was that by the time Mr. Obama won in November 2008, the scare was already rampant and rippling right through the gun-owning world, manifesting itself in an ammunition shortage as people were convinced their "cold dead fingers" were about to be pried open by an over-active justice department coming after their guns.
But nothing even remotely like this occurred.
What did occur was that for months before and after that election, some calibers of ammunition were in short supply or were simply not available at all simply because people were hoarding ammo. Ammunition manufacturers had to ramp up to meet the demand. Not even home loaders could find empty brass and lead for their hobby. After it became apparent that President Obama wasn't knocking down doors to get the guns, but was, in fact, propping up gun-owners' liberties, much of that hoarded ammo found its way back to the market in the forms of weekly classified ads and gun shows, at least this was the case in New Mexico, where not a week would go by that one wouldn't see ads for hundreds if not thousands of rounds for sale... cheap.
The point is that there is a human tendency to see fire where there isn't even smoke, and the gun world certainly sees fire when they see the name of President Barack Hussein Obama. As we enter his second term, some are talking of another shortage, and folks like the Arizona gun store owner are again seeing fire without even smelling smoke.
But I would argue this whole business is a canard, coming out of a fantasy, based on a hoax, resulting from a conspiracy, because people are using a ready-fire-aim approach, reacting without stopping to think first. This issue is not just about the guns.
What this is about is everything else having to do with guns.
All you have to do is look at just one catalog from any of the many big shooting-supply firms, such as Midway, Midsouth, Natchez, Gamaliel, or Cheaper Than Dirt, to name just a few, and you'll quickly see why. These catalogs are full to overflowing with all manner of accessories, custom parts, ammunition, and anything and everything having to do with hand-guns, rifles, and shotguns for sport shooters, law enforcement, and the military. It's incredible. The after-market accessories market is enormous. It's gigantic. It's... ginormous.
Ignore for the moment the actual gun manufacturers themselves and concentrate instead on the companies that manufacture the myriad after-market items. These companies alone employ tens of thousands of people in the USA. According to a 2010 report by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, this industry represents among the highest concentrations of employed American citizens taking into account all the manufacturing industries currently operating in the USA, employing close to 200,000 people and generating over $30 Billion in industry revenue and taxes paid. Although some of this industry's manufacturing output is certainly generated in other countries, what these numbers represent is that which uniquely takes place here in the USA, as the "Made in America" which is repeated on page after page after catalog page can attest.
Any sentient politician (and yes, I do see the oxymoronic nature of this) who yearns for re-election would be insane, therefore, to affect any American employment at a time of such high American unemployment, yes even a Democratic president who does not face re-election, because doing so could affect a subsequent election. This might seem cynical, but it's the reality.
This just is not going to happen.
The macro-economics of the entire weapons industry play far too great a role and extend far too deeply into the local micro-economies in which these manufacturers operate. But many would rather demonize and obfuscate rather than see this reality.
The gun industry is safe. Gun owners can calm down. The Arizona gun store owner can take down his sign, because if he thinks Obama voters are too stupid to own guns, then he might be too stupid to sell them if he believes any of what he fears will happen, will ever happen.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
Benghazi is a tragedy, but...
Along with the rest of the country, I've been listening to and watching this story unfold. The right immediately pounced on it trying to use it as leverage to put the Obama campaign off its stride, well before anything was known about it. The right-wing media, a.k.a. Bullshit Mountain News, a.k.a. FOX News, jumped on this story like a pig jumps on a pile of corn cobs, cynically using parents of dead servicemen to its own ends, to its own craven advantage.
I do feel badly for their loss. I watched my in-laws lose their two sons. Parents should not have to attend the funerals of their children, but these military sons knew the risks they took in the work they chose and obviously accepted them. We have to honor their service, but not by reflexively and blindly jerking knees to get at answers.
The right's opportunistic pounce was prompted by Mitt Romney's pre-emptive strike mere minutes after the attacks happened and an hour or so before the administration responded to them. Mr. Romney was speaking without regard to facts --- after all, who could know facts so soon --- but this tendency for ready-fire-aim and proven disregard for facts continued unabated. Then, after the outcome of the election was clear --- that the president was re-elected and that the right received a sound thrashing --- the collective and pent-up spite and mean-spiritedness, whose poster-boy is Sen. John McCain, surfaced in earnest.
Now, it has escalated into speculative reports about possible impeachment hearings, calls for Watergate-style panels, and cries for vengeance.
Yes. We lost four Americans in Benghazi.
Yes. They were outnumbered and outgunned.
Yes. The consulate could have been better protected. (But let's not forget that an asked-for appropriation to bolster foreign/embassy/consulate security was voted down by a Republican-controlled congress.)
And Yes. The intelligence (an ironic use of the word by any measure) was probably not the best it could be.
But didn't we lose thousands of American lives in Iraq based on faulty, if not entirely false, intel and "mushroom-cloud" rhetoric?
Where were the voices on the right then?
Didn't that same intel and rhetoric subsequently lead to tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths as well, indirectly and directly?
Who at FOX News was asking "Why"?
Didn't we at that time have these same senators, McCain and Graham, among others, defending Condaleeza Rice, purveyor of the mushroom-cloud-laden imagery?
Who besides the "liberal media" took issue with her claim?
Look, two wrongs add up to two wrongs, and nothing more. But rather than bypass common sense and logic and instead run straight to speculation and irrationality and conspiracy and cover-up, isn't it also possible that this was simply a tragic accident, a clusterf%#k, an unfortunate incident that is now being used for political gain by many, but also by a man who is sad to have lost his friend, Ambassador Stevens, but who is also petty enough to still be sore at the man who beat him so soundly in the 2008 election and now sees a chance to attack the president once again? (And let's not overestimate Sen. McCain's sincerity: he missed an informational Senate meeting even as he was complaining to the press about a gross lack of information. The man has never met a microphone or a camera into which he refused to speak.)
Isn't it possible that these four Americans died because in foreign service, Americans will occasionally die? How many embassies and consulates were attacked and how many Americans were killed under previous administrations?
Isn't it just as possible that this story is now being used as a rallying cry by those on the far right who are not happy the election went the way it did?
Isn't a political agenda in all this at least possible?
Yes, it could be argued that political motivation has led to some people being less than forthcoming in the reporting of this story, but Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham, and their echo-chamber, need to take a few steps back and a few deep breaths, and they need to get some perspective. Even four years after we invaded Iraq, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said "all the facts were not yet in" on whether the WMD claims were true or false.
In this most recent episode, we similarly don't yet know who is at fault, if any one person is. But it's clear from even a cursory examination of the record that Ambassador Susan Rice is not at fault here. She's the Ambassador to the UN and has nothing to do with embassy security! She was asked to speak on this first, she did so based on the intel everyone --- including Senators McCain and Graham --- had at the time, and she did so essentially verbatim. Senator McCain gave Condi a pass, so why not Susan?
Cool heads on the right need to prevail here. The Republican Party is already down as a result of the 2012 election, and taking to its most illogical extreme this perceived opportunity to try to damage President Obama will do nothing but further damage the Republican's credibility as a viable political party.
Let's get to the bottom of this, please, but let's do it methodically and patiently, within the parameters of congress's already established, and not inconsiderable, oversight powers.
Update 11/17: As of this writing, Mr. Patreaus has testified and the result of his testimony seems to have caused Senator McCain to tone down his sharp comments... a little. But I don't think this issue will be dropped anytime soon. The right is angry and seems to want President Obama to be to blame, regardless of the facts.
I do feel badly for their loss. I watched my in-laws lose their two sons. Parents should not have to attend the funerals of their children, but these military sons knew the risks they took in the work they chose and obviously accepted them. We have to honor their service, but not by reflexively and blindly jerking knees to get at answers.
The right's opportunistic pounce was prompted by Mitt Romney's pre-emptive strike mere minutes after the attacks happened and an hour or so before the administration responded to them. Mr. Romney was speaking without regard to facts --- after all, who could know facts so soon --- but this tendency for ready-fire-aim and proven disregard for facts continued unabated. Then, after the outcome of the election was clear --- that the president was re-elected and that the right received a sound thrashing --- the collective and pent-up spite and mean-spiritedness, whose poster-boy is Sen. John McCain, surfaced in earnest.
Now, it has escalated into speculative reports about possible impeachment hearings, calls for Watergate-style panels, and cries for vengeance.
Yes. We lost four Americans in Benghazi.
Yes. They were outnumbered and outgunned.
Yes. The consulate could have been better protected. (But let's not forget that an asked-for appropriation to bolster foreign/embassy/consulate security was voted down by a Republican-controlled congress.)
And Yes. The intelligence (an ironic use of the word by any measure) was probably not the best it could be.
But didn't we lose thousands of American lives in Iraq based on faulty, if not entirely false, intel and "mushroom-cloud" rhetoric?
Where were the voices on the right then?
Didn't that same intel and rhetoric subsequently lead to tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths as well, indirectly and directly?
Who at FOX News was asking "Why"?
Didn't we at that time have these same senators, McCain and Graham, among others, defending Condaleeza Rice, purveyor of the mushroom-cloud-laden imagery?
Who besides the "liberal media" took issue with her claim?
Look, two wrongs add up to two wrongs, and nothing more. But rather than bypass common sense and logic and instead run straight to speculation and irrationality and conspiracy and cover-up, isn't it also possible that this was simply a tragic accident, a clusterf%#k, an unfortunate incident that is now being used for political gain by many, but also by a man who is sad to have lost his friend, Ambassador Stevens, but who is also petty enough to still be sore at the man who beat him so soundly in the 2008 election and now sees a chance to attack the president once again? (And let's not overestimate Sen. McCain's sincerity: he missed an informational Senate meeting even as he was complaining to the press about a gross lack of information. The man has never met a microphone or a camera into which he refused to speak.)
Isn't it possible that these four Americans died because in foreign service, Americans will occasionally die? How many embassies and consulates were attacked and how many Americans were killed under previous administrations?
Isn't it just as possible that this story is now being used as a rallying cry by those on the far right who are not happy the election went the way it did?
Isn't a political agenda in all this at least possible?
Yes, it could be argued that political motivation has led to some people being less than forthcoming in the reporting of this story, but Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham, and their echo-chamber, need to take a few steps back and a few deep breaths, and they need to get some perspective. Even four years after we invaded Iraq, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said "all the facts were not yet in" on whether the WMD claims were true or false.
In this most recent episode, we similarly don't yet know who is at fault, if any one person is. But it's clear from even a cursory examination of the record that Ambassador Susan Rice is not at fault here. She's the Ambassador to the UN and has nothing to do with embassy security! She was asked to speak on this first, she did so based on the intel everyone --- including Senators McCain and Graham --- had at the time, and she did so essentially verbatim. Senator McCain gave Condi a pass, so why not Susan?
Cool heads on the right need to prevail here. The Republican Party is already down as a result of the 2012 election, and taking to its most illogical extreme this perceived opportunity to try to damage President Obama will do nothing but further damage the Republican's credibility as a viable political party.
Let's get to the bottom of this, please, but let's do it methodically and patiently, within the parameters of congress's already established, and not inconsiderable, oversight powers.
Update 11/17: As of this writing, Mr. Patreaus has testified and the result of his testimony seems to have caused Senator McCain to tone down his sharp comments... a little. But I don't think this issue will be dropped anytime soon. The right is angry and seems to want President Obama to be to blame, regardless of the facts.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Fairwell to arms: one possible explanation...
File the following bit of conjecture under the category of Wild Ass Guesses.
What about this as a possible explanation for what all this generals-having-affairs kerfuffle is really about...
A gung-ho, perhaps marginally anti-Obama, FBI agent was approached by a friend who received what she perceived to be threatening emails, and the gung-ho agent, in an attempt to drag the current administration into a potentially embarrassing scandal weeks before the election, opened up a can of worms to a Republican member of congress, but the attempt backfired when...
This is my theory and is complete speculation on my part.
Update 11/16: As of this writing, it would appear the FBI agent involved did not have a political axe to grind, so down in flames goes my theory. I just hope the affected relationships and families can recover from this and that the investigations can help get this behind us all so we can address what actually matters.
What about this as a possible explanation for what all this generals-having-affairs kerfuffle is really about...
A gung-ho, perhaps marginally anti-Obama, FBI agent was approached by a friend who received what she perceived to be threatening emails, and the gung-ho agent, in an attempt to drag the current administration into a potentially embarrassing scandal weeks before the election, opened up a can of worms to a Republican member of congress, but the attempt backfired when...
- it was discovered that the person sending the threatening emails was having an affair with the head of the CIA and...
- the person who reported the threatening emails, was, herself, exchanging "inappropriate" emails with another high-profile general.
- a botched attempt to score political points by someone who didn't understand chain-of-command-and-disclosure policies and requirements and...
- someone else not realizing that her other personal emails would be fair game in an official investigation that she caused to happen based on... emails sent to her?
This is my theory and is complete speculation on my part.
Update 11/16: As of this writing, it would appear the FBI agent involved did not have a political axe to grind, so down in flames goes my theory. I just hope the affected relationships and families can recover from this and that the investigations can help get this behind us all so we can address what actually matters.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Accept that our democracy works and works well!
To all those who decry Obama's first term as a loss of our country, a loss of our liberty, a loss of our freedom, and a loss of our constitutional values, think about this: our democracy works just fine and his re-election proves it.
Not only did we elect the first African-American president, but now we've re-elected the first African-American president. Maine, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin also showed us something in their elections.
I am not saying someone should vote for a candidate just because of race, or gender, or sexual preference. I am saying that we demonstrate our democracy works when we can ignore race, gender, sexual preference, anything other than the qualities of the person running.
These are the first steps.
If to you this isn't a pure example of a great moment for our country in the eyes of the entire world and history, if to you this isn't an excellent example of liberty and freedom in action, and if to you this isn't a fine example of our constitutional right to vote and to hold a free and fair election, then you aren't being honest or you don't understand what these things really mean.
And if you're still resistant, still locked in a pissed-off position, please allow me to suggest that you take the example of Mr. Romney who, in his concession speech, took the highest, most positive road he's taken in this campaign and behaved like a real gentlemen, a gentleman who might have had a chance if he hadn't allowed his handlers to turn him into someone he isn't. In some ways I think we saw the real man tonight, the real Mitt Romney, and President Obama might have to count himself lucky that this man did not show up for this campaign before tonight.
Not only did we elect the first African-American president, but now we've re-elected the first African-American president. Maine, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin also showed us something in their elections.
I am not saying someone should vote for a candidate just because of race, or gender, or sexual preference. I am saying that we demonstrate our democracy works when we can ignore race, gender, sexual preference, anything other than the qualities of the person running.
These are the first steps.
If to you this isn't a pure example of a great moment for our country in the eyes of the entire world and history, if to you this isn't an excellent example of liberty and freedom in action, and if to you this isn't a fine example of our constitutional right to vote and to hold a free and fair election, then you aren't being honest or you don't understand what these things really mean.
And if you're still resistant, still locked in a pissed-off position, please allow me to suggest that you take the example of Mr. Romney who, in his concession speech, took the highest, most positive road he's taken in this campaign and behaved like a real gentlemen, a gentleman who might have had a chance if he hadn't allowed his handlers to turn him into someone he isn't. In some ways I think we saw the real man tonight, the real Mitt Romney, and President Obama might have to count himself lucky that this man did not show up for this campaign before tonight.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
The Big FU to Jon Husted and Rick Scott...
After all the shenanigans that Ohio's Jon Husted and Florida's Rick Scott have pulled in order to try to slow down or prevent early voting as a way to improve their side's chances in this election, wouldn't it just be great if President Obama won without either state factoring in?
It would be like a large "F%#K YOU!" to both of them.
P.S. Post-election... I got half of my wish. FL had zero effect on the outcome; take that Rick!
It would be like a large "F%#K YOU!" to both of them.
P.S. Post-election... I got half of my wish. FL had zero effect on the outcome; take that Rick!
The Debate about Voting v. Not Voting: a Musical Response
Some estimates are suggesting that of the registered voters in the USA, some 40-plus percent will not vote today, November 6, 2012.
This is just nuts.
What, standing in a line is too much trouble to determine the direction your country takes? You don't want the right to be able to bitch for four years if your guy loses? Because if you don't vote, you can't bitch. You couldn't get your s&%t together to request an absentee ballot?
Well, I have a musical challenge for you.
If you vote, this will be your theme song for the next four years.
But if you do not vote, this will your theme song for the next four years, and you'll deserve it too because you're a d#!khead for not voting.
Happy big-D Democracy everyone! Now go put your big-boy and big-girl pants on and vote like your theme song depended on it
This is just nuts.
What, standing in a line is too much trouble to determine the direction your country takes? You don't want the right to be able to bitch for four years if your guy loses? Because if you don't vote, you can't bitch. You couldn't get your s&%t together to request an absentee ballot?
Well, I have a musical challenge for you.
If you vote, this will be your theme song for the next four years.
But if you do not vote, this will your theme song for the next four years, and you'll deserve it too because you're a d#!khead for not voting.
Happy big-D Democracy everyone! Now go put your big-boy and big-girl pants on and vote like your theme song depended on it
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Dear Erin Burnett...
I've watched CNN (and especially you) for the last
time.
If I hear you second-guess hurricane preparedness --- which is your go-to journalistic move since being on CNBC and completely and similarly whiffing on the build-up to the financial collapse --- one more time I'll scream.
Last night you rhetorically asked, and I'm paraphrasing, why someone didn't anticipate the lack-of-power-induced lines at gas stations before the hurricane. This came on the heels of your asking other such "tough" questions on previous nights. Wow. What hard-hitting journalism.
Yawn.
Erin, why didn't you anticipate it if you're so freaking smart? Oh right, because you did such a bang-up job shouting to the rooftops about the financial meltdown before it happened, what with you being a financial journalist and being able to personally interview the characters responsible for that cock-up and all.
If you're not going to be part of the solution, please, please... stop being part of the problem, although this behavior does fit with the bromide that one should do what one is good at, which in your case is professional second-guessing and hand-wringing.
With kindest regards...
If I hear you second-guess hurricane preparedness --- which is your go-to journalistic move since being on CNBC and completely and similarly whiffing on the build-up to the financial collapse --- one more time I'll scream.
Last night you rhetorically asked, and I'm paraphrasing, why someone didn't anticipate the lack-of-power-induced lines at gas stations before the hurricane. This came on the heels of your asking other such "tough" questions on previous nights. Wow. What hard-hitting journalism.
Yawn.
Erin, why didn't you anticipate it if you're so freaking smart? Oh right, because you did such a bang-up job shouting to the rooftops about the financial meltdown before it happened, what with you being a financial journalist and being able to personally interview the characters responsible for that cock-up and all.
If you're not going to be part of the solution, please, please... stop being part of the problem, although this behavior does fit with the bromide that one should do what one is good at, which in your case is professional second-guessing and hand-wringing.
With kindest regards...
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
The answer to a good question...
We recently had breakfast with some friends here in Albuquerque, and one of them asked me how I got into Cisco Systems in the first place. I gave her my now pat answer: "I got into Cisco Systems because a guy hit on my girlfriend." They both looked at me, and I smiled and said, "It's a pretty good story."
When I was in school in Phoenix, 1984 to 1988, we lived in an apartment complex about two blocks from school. It was a new complex and we both liked it. One day Row and I were cooking on one of the complex's outdoor grills and she had just come back from checking things; she told me she'd met one of the residents. He was a guy name of Jeff from California, who worked at Intel in Phoenix, and his balcony was right above the grills. I asked her how he seemed, and she told me he had seen her, had come down, and introduced himself. He flirted with her a little (this was years before he and his wife, Maggie, met), and Row told him her boyfriend was a student at DeVry University. He told Row he'd like to meet me.
A couple of weeks later we invited him for dinner and we chatted about college, Intel, and Silicon Valley, where we were planning to go after my graduation. Jeff told us he could show us around as that was where he grew up. We stayed in touch with Jeff, and when we moved to Mountain View, CA, we met Jeff's mom and dad, Adelaide and Bob, two of the dearest, sweetest people to ever live, and spent time with them all. Jeff told me several times that if the situation ever presented itself to get in touch and he could maybe help me find something.
I was recruited by Perkin-Elmer right out of college as a field-service engineer, and had been there for about 18 months when the stress and almost constant traveling and driving (sometimes hundreds of miles a day) finally got to me and I suffered what my doctor said was probably a transient ischemic attack (TIA), based on the symptoms I had described to her. During our appointment in her office she asked me about about my job and what I did, day to day. After a good 20 minutes of this she took out her script pad, wrote on it, tore off the page, and handed it to me.
It said, "Michael... find a new job!"
So, I went home and talked to Row and she reminded me what Jeff had said so many times. I called him the next day. A couple of weeks before he had just started working for a then-tiny start-up called Cisco Systems, whose IPO had happened only a few months before that, and although I was nervously hesitant to go the start-up route, as even back then Mountain View and the Silicon Valley were expensive places to live, I took my doctor's advice, took a chance, and took my résumé to Cisco, then on O'Brien Drive in East Menlo Park.
As luck would have it, and with, no doubt, some good words from Jeff, I got an interview with Sandy Lerner. That was July of 1990, and I was with Cisco until November of 1999. Now, well over 22 years after my doctor's "prescription," I smile every time someone asks me, "So, how did you get into Cisco Systems anyway?"
I know I've thanked him before now, but... thank you again, Jeff, more than I can ever express. I am so glad you decided to flirt with Row that day.
When I was in school in Phoenix, 1984 to 1988, we lived in an apartment complex about two blocks from school. It was a new complex and we both liked it. One day Row and I were cooking on one of the complex's outdoor grills and she had just come back from checking things; she told me she'd met one of the residents. He was a guy name of Jeff from California, who worked at Intel in Phoenix, and his balcony was right above the grills. I asked her how he seemed, and she told me he had seen her, had come down, and introduced himself. He flirted with her a little (this was years before he and his wife, Maggie, met), and Row told him her boyfriend was a student at DeVry University. He told Row he'd like to meet me.
A couple of weeks later we invited him for dinner and we chatted about college, Intel, and Silicon Valley, where we were planning to go after my graduation. Jeff told us he could show us around as that was where he grew up. We stayed in touch with Jeff, and when we moved to Mountain View, CA, we met Jeff's mom and dad, Adelaide and Bob, two of the dearest, sweetest people to ever live, and spent time with them all. Jeff told me several times that if the situation ever presented itself to get in touch and he could maybe help me find something.
I was recruited by Perkin-Elmer right out of college as a field-service engineer, and had been there for about 18 months when the stress and almost constant traveling and driving (sometimes hundreds of miles a day) finally got to me and I suffered what my doctor said was probably a transient ischemic attack (TIA), based on the symptoms I had described to her. During our appointment in her office she asked me about about my job and what I did, day to day. After a good 20 minutes of this she took out her script pad, wrote on it, tore off the page, and handed it to me.
It said, "Michael... find a new job!"
So, I went home and talked to Row and she reminded me what Jeff had said so many times. I called him the next day. A couple of weeks before he had just started working for a then-tiny start-up called Cisco Systems, whose IPO had happened only a few months before that, and although I was nervously hesitant to go the start-up route, as even back then Mountain View and the Silicon Valley were expensive places to live, I took my doctor's advice, took a chance, and took my résumé to Cisco, then on O'Brien Drive in East Menlo Park.
As luck would have it, and with, no doubt, some good words from Jeff, I got an interview with Sandy Lerner. That was July of 1990, and I was with Cisco until November of 1999. Now, well over 22 years after my doctor's "prescription," I smile every time someone asks me, "So, how did you get into Cisco Systems anyway?"
I know I've thanked him before now, but... thank you again, Jeff, more than I can ever express. I am so glad you decided to flirt with Row that day.
Friday, October 26, 2012
A brief rant about baloney…
With the advent of blogs, such as this one, and with myriad
(re)sources available for finding information, misinformation, disinformation --- thanks to the Internet and World Wide Web --- a popular
pastime has emerged: finding information that fits a viewpoint (also called "confirmation bias"), and repeating
it somewhere, usually on a blog, or on Twitter, or on Facebook, and forcing it to fit a preconceived notion or the already held viewpoint. This (mis/dis)information can be used to reinforce a position, to shape a
position, to refute a position, to confuse/obfuscate a position, or to create a
false straw-man position. Hopefully this is done ethically, with information, and not (dis)misinformation, done responsibly, done to move a discussion
forward, done to at least attempt to offer something
constructive.
But all too often lately it's being done with a prior/assumed claim to protected speech, with the idea that an opinion is somehow being expressed in the very act of repeating something true or something false, and that because we're all entitled to our opinions we can pretty much say/post/repeat anything we want.
However... there's a huge gap between expressing opinion and simply repeating baloney.
As an example, just one small example, take The Donald's recent "very big" announcement about President Obama. The Interwebs were awash with speculation about what Mr. Trump might be planning to say. Ultimately what he did say (his grand offer of paying a charity upon release of information, a.k.a. extortion) was absurd on its face, but the most heinous and hateful of these speculations was perhaps that The Donald was in possession of divorce papers belonging to the Obamas, that one has filed for divorce against the other, a piece of “intel” for which there is zero evidence extant, and about which the source was an anonymous someone who is close to The Donald. This "fact" was "reported" on Tuesday, 10/23/12, by several bloggers, and, sadly, repeated either in or out of context by many others. All this did was play on and put forward another of the tired anti-Obama themes that had been flying around the blogosphere since the 2009 inauguration.
Now let’s be clear: a fact is something that has tested substance, that has been verifiably tested and proven, that can be, therefore, taken as being true.
An example of a fact follows: The Obamas are married.
An opinion, on the other hand, is a viewpoint, a theoretical take about, a speculation on, or an interpretation of some fact or some hypothesis.
An example of an opinion follows: The Obamas are married (fact), and to me they seem happily so (opinion).
This opinion is probably based on something aside from the underlying, reported, or verified fact (e.g., a marriage license that is probably available as a part of the public record; guests who attended the wedding being interviewed; etc.). It’s probably based on a perception, an observation, a gut-feeling. The underlying fact supporting the expressed opinion is still a truth, but the interpretation is where the opinion part lives.
Baloney, the repeating of something that might not be (and probably isn’t) true, offering something that is just speculative, repeating something that has no basis in fact, is just that: it's baloney. For example, repeating as fact that The Donald has said he has divorce papers in hand is baloney, and then offering that this may or may not be true is also baloney, and then defending the act of offering this disinformation as an honest expression of opinion is just more baloney heaped on the previous baloney.
Baloney regardless of its quantity is still baloney; it's just a smaller or a larger pile of it.
Some of my students used to become frustrated during class discussions when I or a fellow student would call them on stating opinion versus stating fact versus stating baloney. One of them might have said what he or she honestly and innocently felt was his or her opinion and would then take offense to any disagreement based on this prior assumption of free speech, as stated above. To help clear up these sorts of misunderstandings, Carl Sagan developed his Baloney Detection Kit, which I heartily urge anyone to read. My nowhere near as complete measure for baloney detection is as follows:
Is the thing you said…
But all too often lately it's being done with a prior/assumed claim to protected speech, with the idea that an opinion is somehow being expressed in the very act of repeating something true or something false, and that because we're all entitled to our opinions we can pretty much say/post/repeat anything we want.
However... there's a huge gap between expressing opinion and simply repeating baloney.
As an example, just one small example, take The Donald's recent "very big" announcement about President Obama. The Interwebs were awash with speculation about what Mr. Trump might be planning to say. Ultimately what he did say (his grand offer of paying a charity upon release of information, a.k.a. extortion) was absurd on its face, but the most heinous and hateful of these speculations was perhaps that The Donald was in possession of divorce papers belonging to the Obamas, that one has filed for divorce against the other, a piece of “intel” for which there is zero evidence extant, and about which the source was an anonymous someone who is close to The Donald. This "fact" was "reported" on Tuesday, 10/23/12, by several bloggers, and, sadly, repeated either in or out of context by many others. All this did was play on and put forward another of the tired anti-Obama themes that had been flying around the blogosphere since the 2009 inauguration.
Now let’s be clear: a fact is something that has tested substance, that has been verifiably tested and proven, that can be, therefore, taken as being true.
An example of a fact follows: The Obamas are married.
An opinion, on the other hand, is a viewpoint, a theoretical take about, a speculation on, or an interpretation of some fact or some hypothesis.
An example of an opinion follows: The Obamas are married (fact), and to me they seem happily so (opinion).
This opinion is probably based on something aside from the underlying, reported, or verified fact (e.g., a marriage license that is probably available as a part of the public record; guests who attended the wedding being interviewed; etc.). It’s probably based on a perception, an observation, a gut-feeling. The underlying fact supporting the expressed opinion is still a truth, but the interpretation is where the opinion part lives.
Baloney regardless of its quantity is still baloney; it's just a smaller or a larger pile of it.
Baloney, the repeating of something that might not be (and probably isn’t) true, offering something that is just speculative, repeating something that has no basis in fact, is just that: it's baloney. For example, repeating as fact that The Donald has said he has divorce papers in hand is baloney, and then offering that this may or may not be true is also baloney, and then defending the act of offering this disinformation as an honest expression of opinion is just more baloney heaped on the previous baloney.
Baloney regardless of its quantity is still baloney; it's just a smaller or a larger pile of it.
Some of my students used to become frustrated during class discussions when I or a fellow student would call them on stating opinion versus stating fact versus stating baloney. One of them might have said what he or she honestly and innocently felt was his or her opinion and would then take offense to any disagreement based on this prior assumption of free speech, as stated above. To help clear up these sorts of misunderstandings, Carl Sagan developed his Baloney Detection Kit, which I heartily urge anyone to read. My nowhere near as complete measure for baloney detection is as follows:
Is the thing you said…
- verifiably true, that is, did you do the work necessary to verify it as true, and are you now offering a verbatim presentation or, at least, a closely paraphrased approximation or report of this verified true fact, or
- just something you heard or that you read, that you did not bother to verify one way or the other, and that you are now just repeating, either paraphrased or verbatim, as if it’s a fact?
If it's 1, then it's probably a fact and you are offering your
opinion on it; however, if it's 2, or something like this, then it's possibly not a fact and, until
it’s verified one way or the other, is just as possibly baloney and definitely not an opinion. It's important to
understand which is which. And verification is based not just on how many times something is repeated on the Interwebs, but also by whom it's being repeated: there are good sources, and there are bad sources, and it's necessary to glean one from the other. If a source has an agenda, either for or against something, then it's probably not reliable. The challenge is finding objective sources.
Yup… we do have free speech, and thank goodness for this, but I’m not sure we’re equally
free to spread baloney on anything other than slices of bread. And even if we
are free to do this, does the ability to spread baloney on anything make it the right thing to do?
Fact is fact and opinion is opinion, but baloney is neither of
these: it's just baloney (and a lunch meat).
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Why are second terms usually trouble for POTUS's?
OK. Hear me out on this. As of the Twenty-Second Amendment, proposed in 1947 and ratified in 1951, we no longer allow a person to serve more than two terms as President of the United States. We have term limits on POTUS. Starting with Harry Truman, the maximum became two terms. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the last person to serve more than two, and only four presidents have been re-elected since then:
Answers to these questions have been posed by others, but by way of answers here, first look at what's happened to all four of these two term presidents since Nixon. In each case, something occurred during their first terms, or came to light during their second terms, that made their second terms at least problematic and in some cases down-right scandalous.
Each man suffered in different ways and to differing effects, but each suffered, each was made to suffer, of this we can be certain. Honestly, just how much can any one person really do if he or she A) continues to remain visible as a target for enemies during that second term, and B) spends a not-inconsiderable portion of the first term running for the second?
And how much does familiarity possibly breed contempt as that hard-fought second term unfolds? In this era of the Internet and the World Wide Web, doesn't that contempt breed even more quickly and more ferociously? So what's the solution? What can help future presidents from having their second terms end so badly?
It's such a simple solution: eliminate the second term. Here's how.
Make the time that any one person can serve as POTUS a single five-year term. The election is held in November, and the inauguration occurs in January when the president starts working, just as now. But be honest, in a 48-month first term, how much time does anyone really spend doing the things a POTUS is supposed to do before he (and eventually, she) has to start campaigning again, assuming he or she will run again? Were you to listen to critics, this time gets shorter with every new president. Conversely, most presidents will start their "last" campaign well over a year before the second election --- George W. Bush announced his candidacy in June 2003; Barack Obama announced his candidacy in April 2011 --- so let's call it an average of 16 months of campaigning before that second election. In a 48-month first term, therefore, that's fully one-third of the time spent on the stump and off the clock, which means the actual work of being president (i.e., sans last-campaign distractions) is getting done for about 32 months, or a a little over two-and-a-half years (2.6666 years, to be exact).
Now, if you add 32 months of the first term and 32 months of a potential second term, you come up with 64 months, or five-and-one-third years (5.3333 years, to be exact), so let's call the single POTUS term five years: from January of Year N to January of Year N+5, with the time between the preceding November's election day and the following January's inauguration day the time needed to get up to speed, just as it's intended and spent now.
Think about the benefits...
In other words, if promises are made and kept, great! Those who voted for him or her are happy, and although those who didn't won't be, but they won't have to wait too long to try to regain power. Who knows, maybe the next person will continue that good work, assuming it is.
But if promises are made and broken, then no matter: that POTUS is gone after five years anyway, guaranteed. Detractors don't have to feel frustrated that he or she might run again, and supporters don't have to feel conflicted about deciding whether or not to vote for him or her again. Fewer undecideds might be the result.
Everyone wins, but the biggest winner is the American public. We do not have to be bombarded with elections every four years; instead, they'll occur every five years and there will be more new people running each time, giving more people a chance at the job (who'd want it, I say, but... some do), and allowing fresh ideas to be aired every five years instead of every eight, potentially.
The difference between the first four-year term in the current system versus a mandatory single five-year term in this new system, is only one year and includes the added benefit of ensuring that someone who is unliked will serve only one term, and not have the chance to force that second term via obscene PAC spending and a 24/7 barage of attack ads. This could also make third and fourth-party (and more) candidates more viable, by ending the gridlock of the current two-party system. With each five-year cycle, primaries would be held for all party's candidates, not just the party out of power during that first term. What's wrong with a far more level playing field, far less money attempting to influence dubious outcomes, far less time spent making promises, and far more time spent doing the job of POTUS?
Look, I'm sure I've probably missed something here, like term-limiting congress somehow, or something I haven't thought of (it is late after all). But I'm just tossing this at the wall and seeing what sticks, so where's the harm?
**Now here's where disagreement might arise. Some might ask, what's to prevent a total wing-nut from doing something truly damaging in that single term? Well, what's to prevent that now in either term? Those same checks and balances, that same oversight, will still be in place. There's always a way to game just about anything, but has that ever stopped new ideas before?
- Nixon elected 1968, re-elected 1972, although he didn't make it through his second;
- Reagan elected 1980, re-elected 1984;
- Clinton elected 1992, re-elected 1996; and
- Bush the younger elected 2000, re-elected 2004.
Answers to these questions have been posed by others, but by way of answers here, first look at what's happened to all four of these two term presidents since Nixon. In each case, something occurred during their first terms, or came to light during their second terms, that made their second terms at least problematic and in some cases down-right scandalous.
- For Nixon it was his own hubris and paranoia that brought him down by August of 1974, half way through his second term.
- Reagan was re-elected in a landslide in 1984, but by 1986, he and his administration were knee-deep in Iran-Contra.
- William Jefferson Clinton was re-elected in 1996, beating Robert Dole by almost nine points, but by 1998, his fondness for cigars and interns, the hatred so many seemed to have for him and his wife, made his second term an affair to forget.
- And by the beginning of George W. Bush's second term, his ham-handed attempt to "spend political capital" on privatizing Social Security, an idea it turned out no one liked, was akin to writing a political check that bounced almost immediately. This and two unpaid-for wars assured his second term would be cast poorly by historians.
Each man suffered in different ways and to differing effects, but each suffered, each was made to suffer, of this we can be certain. Honestly, just how much can any one person really do if he or she A) continues to remain visible as a target for enemies during that second term, and B) spends a not-inconsiderable portion of the first term running for the second?
And how much does familiarity possibly breed contempt as that hard-fought second term unfolds? In this era of the Internet and the World Wide Web, doesn't that contempt breed even more quickly and more ferociously? So what's the solution? What can help future presidents from having their second terms end so badly?
It's such a simple solution: eliminate the second term. Here's how.
Make the time that any one person can serve as POTUS a single five-year term. The election is held in November, and the inauguration occurs in January when the president starts working, just as now. But be honest, in a 48-month first term, how much time does anyone really spend doing the things a POTUS is supposed to do before he (and eventually, she) has to start campaigning again, assuming he or she will run again? Were you to listen to critics, this time gets shorter with every new president. Conversely, most presidents will start their "last" campaign well over a year before the second election --- George W. Bush announced his candidacy in June 2003; Barack Obama announced his candidacy in April 2011 --- so let's call it an average of 16 months of campaigning before that second election. In a 48-month first term, therefore, that's fully one-third of the time spent on the stump and off the clock, which means the actual work of being president (i.e., sans last-campaign distractions) is getting done for about 32 months, or a a little over two-and-a-half years (2.6666 years, to be exact).
Now, if you add 32 months of the first term and 32 months of a potential second term, you come up with 64 months, or five-and-one-third years (5.3333 years, to be exact), so let's call the single POTUS term five years: from January of Year N to January of Year N+5, with the time between the preceding November's election day and the following January's inauguration day the time needed to get up to speed, just as it's intended and spent now.
Think about the benefits...
- The time and effort and distraction of having to campaign between terms? Gone.
- The time wasted not actually doing POTUS-related work? Gone.
- The political gamesmanship that always occurs when a sitting president legally and rightfully campaigns but is criticized for doing so? Gone.
- The need to raise that massive second-campaign cash? Gone.
- Once again exposing oneself to the potential for special interest influence brought about by these gobs of cash? Gone.
- The extra time spent being a target for enterprising enemies to claim something that disqualifies a person in that position? Gone.
- The effects of second-term PAC money, thanks to the Supreme Court, which will have a larger and larger emphasis going forward? Gone.
In other words, if promises are made and kept, great! Those who voted for him or her are happy, and although those who didn't won't be, but they won't have to wait too long to try to regain power. Who knows, maybe the next person will continue that good work, assuming it is.
But if promises are made and broken, then no matter: that POTUS is gone after five years anyway, guaranteed. Detractors don't have to feel frustrated that he or she might run again, and supporters don't have to feel conflicted about deciding whether or not to vote for him or her again. Fewer undecideds might be the result.
Everyone wins, but the biggest winner is the American public. We do not have to be bombarded with elections every four years; instead, they'll occur every five years and there will be more new people running each time, giving more people a chance at the job (who'd want it, I say, but... some do), and allowing fresh ideas to be aired every five years instead of every eight, potentially.
The difference between the first four-year term in the current system versus a mandatory single five-year term in this new system, is only one year and includes the added benefit of ensuring that someone who is unliked will serve only one term, and not have the chance to force that second term via obscene PAC spending and a 24/7 barage of attack ads. This could also make third and fourth-party (and more) candidates more viable, by ending the gridlock of the current two-party system. With each five-year cycle, primaries would be held for all party's candidates, not just the party out of power during that first term. What's wrong with a far more level playing field, far less money attempting to influence dubious outcomes, far less time spent making promises, and far more time spent doing the job of POTUS?
Look, I'm sure I've probably missed something here, like term-limiting congress somehow, or something I haven't thought of (it is late after all). But I'm just tossing this at the wall and seeing what sticks, so where's the harm?
**Now here's where disagreement might arise. Some might ask, what's to prevent a total wing-nut from doing something truly damaging in that single term? Well, what's to prevent that now in either term? Those same checks and balances, that same oversight, will still be in place. There's always a way to game just about anything, but has that ever stopped new ideas before?
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Six of one, meet half dozen of the other...
Last night in the last 2012 debate Mitt the Moderate led his pander parade even farther left as he embraced, condoned, and supported so many of the current administration's policy positions that it begs a couple of questions:
It's because the neo-cons and Tea Party folks running the GOP side of congress --- and the handlers holding their leashes --- hate Obama as POTUS more than they hate Romney as their party's nominee, and they do hate Romney as their party's nominee. They are so anxious to see Obama out of office that they will deny and abandon everything they claim to stand for in order to get Romney into office. This is why they're silent about the emergence of Moderate Mitt, a guy they dislike only slightly less than they dislike Obama. But the positions that the president stated Monday night are positions he's held since day 1 of his presidency, and since that same day they are policies the neo-cons and Tea Party folks have railed against, but now with Mr. Romney's embrace of these same policies, they all fall suddenly silent. OK.
And so I say to the neo-cons and Tea Party folks, you're welcome to him, but be very careful of what it is you're asking for, because you might end up regretting for a long time to come what embracing Panderer-in-Chief Mitt will do to your brand and its credibility; just look what eight years of a "compassionate conservative" did to your brand and its credibility, and to the deficit and debt about which you claim to care so much.
You bought him, you saddled him, you ride him. He's all yours.
- If Governor Romney wants to be POTUS and would do pretty much everything President Obama is already doing, as he claimed he would last night, then six of one, meet half dozen of the other: why in the world would anyone want to change horses? The break-in period is too expensive and messy.
- And if the neo-cons and Tea Party folks --- who are tacitly supporting Romney only because the "true" conservative(s) they really wanted didn't get the nomination --- don't agree with anything Mr. Obama wants, says, and does, which they don't, but their nominee Mr. Romney agrees with pretty much everything Obama wants, says, and does, which as of last night he claims to, then how can the neo-cons and the Tea Party folks stomach Moderate Mitt?
It's because the neo-cons and Tea Party folks running the GOP side of congress --- and the handlers holding their leashes --- hate Obama as POTUS more than they hate Romney as their party's nominee, and they do hate Romney as their party's nominee. They are so anxious to see Obama out of office that they will deny and abandon everything they claim to stand for in order to get Romney into office. This is why they're silent about the emergence of Moderate Mitt, a guy they dislike only slightly less than they dislike Obama. But the positions that the president stated Monday night are positions he's held since day 1 of his presidency, and since that same day they are policies the neo-cons and Tea Party folks have railed against, but now with Mr. Romney's embrace of these same policies, they all fall suddenly silent. OK.
And so I say to the neo-cons and Tea Party folks, you're welcome to him, but be very careful of what it is you're asking for, because you might end up regretting for a long time to come what embracing Panderer-in-Chief Mitt will do to your brand and its credibility; just look what eight years of a "compassionate conservative" did to your brand and its credibility, and to the deficit and debt about which you claim to care so much.
You bought him, you saddled him, you ride him. He's all yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
