Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, when a lot of states have primaries or caucuses. Folks are saying Donald Trump may be unstoppable when the day is done.
Does that mean he'll meet Hillary Clinton in November? Not necessarily.
Trump has done pretty well for himself, but it may be that's only because the alternative to Trump is an entire list of guys. As a result, the anybody-but-Trump votes are getting scattered.
If there was only one other candidate in the race, it may be Trump would lose every primary two to one.
And that's what might happen at the Republican Convention.
Trump will have a lot of delegates committed for the first ballot, but probably not enough to put him over the top. At that point the proverbial smoke-filled room gets a workout and maybe somebody emerges who can actually get nominated.
For that to happen, it just means the vast majority of folks who are ever going to support Trump are already doing so. And everybody else is waiting for a consensus alternative.
Soon as one pops up, the majority will jump on the guy and that'll be the end for Trump.
Or maybe he wants to be Vice President. Can Trump play the Dick Cheney role, a shadowy figure pushing the President to invade countries and torture its citizens?
That might work, though it's hard to get a read on a Trump in the shadows. That guy loves the lime-light.
He says (currently) he was against invading Iraq, but that doesn't mean he won't have a list of other countries he'd like to pummel. Iran seems like the sort of place that might crop up on such a list. For one thing, Trump would absolutely love to renegotiate that nuclear deal. And if Iran refuses to cooperate on a do-over, maybe the bombs would fall.
Also, does Trump sound like a guy who'd have a lot of patience with North Korea and the shenanigans of Kim Jong-un? How many American nukes would it take to wipe out that country's entire stock of atom bombs and long-throw missiles? And, as an afterthought, it'd only take one more to end the Kim line for good.
As for torture, we've recently heard from The Donald how he stands on that subject: Torture is good. Torture works.
You want a guy to tell you what he knows? Get out your rusty knives and dig in, baby!
But what about guys who know stuff but don't know they know? Did some so-called law-abiding citizen see something significant and maybe get distracted and forget to say something?
That stuff happens, you know.
You see a guy key a lock and open a door. Does that guy really belong on the other side of that door? Does that guy maybe link up to some other guy going through a whole other door? And if the proper authorities knew about both guys and both doors, what heinous plot might be thwarted?
You never know, right?
Could be there's a wealth of murky information out there, bobbing about in the boob- and beer-addled brains of ordinary Joes. Shouldn't we maybe take a peek, see what we can turn up?
You bet we should!
We need to grab folks off the street at random and go to town on 'em, see what they're hiding in that swampy noggin of half-thought notions.
Hey, we could save the world!
The only problem, nobody knows for sure whether those guys have any valuable information or not. Even they don't know, right?
So you have to double down on 'em. You have to pull out all the stops—and all the fingernails, etc.—to make sure the guy is giving you everything he might possibly have mislaid in that rancid melon of his.
Hate to say it, but you may have to shred the son-of-a-bitch until the good stuff comes out. In fact, to be sure you've gotten it all, you pretty much have to terminate the clueless jerk. You need to rip out every bit of his wiring to be sure he not holding back. You gotta punch his ticket all the way to the end of the line.
Seriously, what's the life of one citizen against the lives of all the others?
According to mayhem aficionado Donald Rumsfeld, torture ain't torture unless death is on the table. And it's almost impossible to know when to stop.
So be unstoppable. Who cares if you have to waste half the population to safeguard the other half?
The bonus: It might clear up some of those lines at the DMV.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
9/11 REDUX
The presidential candidates are revisiting 9/11, hoping to once and for all assign blame so the appropriate party can be destroyed and left bleeding at the side of the road.
Donald Trump is fond of reminding us that 9/11 happened on the watch of George W. Bush. The Donald is not exactly assigning blame. He's just saying.
For his part, Jeb Bush says his older brother kept us safe after 9/11, apparently by invading Iraq and so forth.
Trump says invading Iraq was a disaster. And for once he's right.
Coming to Dubya's defense, one of the other candidates (either Cruz or Rubio, who can remember) proposes to blame Bill Clinton for not taking out Osama bin Laden after the first World Trade Center bombing.
The problem with that, after Dubya came into office—by whatever means—he was not required to follow Clinton's lead. What would have prevented him from blasting bin Laden off the face of the earth?
Only the small matter of focus.
Dubya had it in for Saddam Hussein from the git-go. After all, he was the reckless galoot who tried to put a hit on Dubya's dad, George H. W. Bush.
After 9/11, Dubya wasted no time laying the blame on Hussein's doorstep. The case was so prevalent in the nation's psyche, over 80% of the soldiers who participated in the invasion of Iraq said they were there to avenge 9/11 (data from the Harper's Index).
When that argument failed to emerge from the nebulous, Dubya and his gang switched gears and pointed to Weapons of Mass Destruction as the reason for invasion. Turned out they eagerly accepted faulty data to make their case.
Trump calls that a "lie."
It most certainly was an error, but I don't think you can call it a lie unless they knew it wasn't true when they said it. Happily pouncing on any shred of flimsy evidence doesn't make your conclusion a lie. Just shoddy. And, frankly, unworthy of a proper President.
Thing is, it's too late to impeach Dubya.
Jeb says the man kept us safe after 9/11. It remains a dubious claim. Just because no major attack occurred in this country, doesn't mean Dubya provided the juice to keep it from happening. Sometimes there's a little delay getting your revenge-seeking butt into gear.
How long did Muslim extremists simmer, gritting their teeth over the outrageous behavior of the West (installing the unwanted Shah of Iran because the elected government messed with British Petroleum, etc.) before the first bombing in the Big Apple?
(Ah, New York, New York, the target so tasty they named it twice.)
In the aftermath of a decade of war in Iraq, ISIS seems to be coming along nicely. And those guys can recruit on the basis of Dubya's actions as provisional president (the invasion of two Islamic countries).
But they don't have to. Nowadays, ISIS can recruit solely on the fact the United States and its allies are ruthlessly bombing the sacred Islamic State.
But if ISIS wasn't already legitimate, simply being attacked would cut no ice. Fortunately for them, they can say they were attacked in the first place because they opposed the past actions of America.
And we're back in Dubya Country.
But maybe 9/11 was inevitable.
Beneath all the political bluster, the fact remains: human beings are defective creatures. They will always find a way to screw things up. And they will always know they're acting out of the best of intentions, based on the best data available.
People simply know what they know, and everything they see proves them right. (Trafficking in crap is what separates us from the animals.)
The West acts the way it does because it's the right thing to do. Muslims will always defend their nonsensical religion because they know that's the right thing to do.
If Muslims see every event as an attack on their religion, so be it. There's no way to dissuade them. Try to tell them our past actions were in response to a rivalry with the Soviet Union. They don't care. They know different.
Are Muslims so feverishly self-conscious of their religion because deep down they suspect their Prophet was either a lunatic or a liar? Hard to say, but it's worth noting Mohammad was ridiculed at first when he came forward to say he'd been in contact with an angel of God. (By the way, "Allah" means "the God" in Arabic.)
Christianity is also reality-challenged. Their main guy, Jesus of Nazareth, doesn't show up in regular history (just religious "history"). And the fellow is meant to fix a problem ("Original Sin") created when two other fictional characters (Adam and Eve) defied a hypothetical Supreme Being some six thousand years ago.
If that wasn't all, by rights the world should have ended twenty centuries ago, according to the Bible. Pretty sure it didn't.
Or maybe it did and we're all in Hell now.
I guess that could explain some of this crap we're going through.
Donald Trump is fond of reminding us that 9/11 happened on the watch of George W. Bush. The Donald is not exactly assigning blame. He's just saying.
For his part, Jeb Bush says his older brother kept us safe after 9/11, apparently by invading Iraq and so forth.
Trump says invading Iraq was a disaster. And for once he's right.
Coming to Dubya's defense, one of the other candidates (either Cruz or Rubio, who can remember) proposes to blame Bill Clinton for not taking out Osama bin Laden after the first World Trade Center bombing.
The problem with that, after Dubya came into office—by whatever means—he was not required to follow Clinton's lead. What would have prevented him from blasting bin Laden off the face of the earth?
Only the small matter of focus.
Dubya had it in for Saddam Hussein from the git-go. After all, he was the reckless galoot who tried to put a hit on Dubya's dad, George H. W. Bush.
After 9/11, Dubya wasted no time laying the blame on Hussein's doorstep. The case was so prevalent in the nation's psyche, over 80% of the soldiers who participated in the invasion of Iraq said they were there to avenge 9/11 (data from the Harper's Index).
When that argument failed to emerge from the nebulous, Dubya and his gang switched gears and pointed to Weapons of Mass Destruction as the reason for invasion. Turned out they eagerly accepted faulty data to make their case.
Trump calls that a "lie."
It most certainly was an error, but I don't think you can call it a lie unless they knew it wasn't true when they said it. Happily pouncing on any shred of flimsy evidence doesn't make your conclusion a lie. Just shoddy. And, frankly, unworthy of a proper President.
Thing is, it's too late to impeach Dubya.
Jeb says the man kept us safe after 9/11. It remains a dubious claim. Just because no major attack occurred in this country, doesn't mean Dubya provided the juice to keep it from happening. Sometimes there's a little delay getting your revenge-seeking butt into gear.
How long did Muslim extremists simmer, gritting their teeth over the outrageous behavior of the West (installing the unwanted Shah of Iran because the elected government messed with British Petroleum, etc.) before the first bombing in the Big Apple?
(Ah, New York, New York, the target so tasty they named it twice.)
In the aftermath of a decade of war in Iraq, ISIS seems to be coming along nicely. And those guys can recruit on the basis of Dubya's actions as provisional president (the invasion of two Islamic countries).
But they don't have to. Nowadays, ISIS can recruit solely on the fact the United States and its allies are ruthlessly bombing the sacred Islamic State.
But if ISIS wasn't already legitimate, simply being attacked would cut no ice. Fortunately for them, they can say they were attacked in the first place because they opposed the past actions of America.
And we're back in Dubya Country.
But maybe 9/11 was inevitable.
Beneath all the political bluster, the fact remains: human beings are defective creatures. They will always find a way to screw things up. And they will always know they're acting out of the best of intentions, based on the best data available.
People simply know what they know, and everything they see proves them right. (Trafficking in crap is what separates us from the animals.)
The West acts the way it does because it's the right thing to do. Muslims will always defend their nonsensical religion because they know that's the right thing to do.
If Muslims see every event as an attack on their religion, so be it. There's no way to dissuade them. Try to tell them our past actions were in response to a rivalry with the Soviet Union. They don't care. They know different.
Are Muslims so feverishly self-conscious of their religion because deep down they suspect their Prophet was either a lunatic or a liar? Hard to say, but it's worth noting Mohammad was ridiculed at first when he came forward to say he'd been in contact with an angel of God. (By the way, "Allah" means "the God" in Arabic.)
Christianity is also reality-challenged. Their main guy, Jesus of Nazareth, doesn't show up in regular history (just religious "history"). And the fellow is meant to fix a problem ("Original Sin") created when two other fictional characters (Adam and Eve) defied a hypothetical Supreme Being some six thousand years ago.
If that wasn't all, by rights the world should have ended twenty centuries ago, according to the Bible. Pretty sure it didn't.
Or maybe it did and we're all in Hell now.
I guess that could explain some of this crap we're going through.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW - OR DO WE?
I am aware a lot of my posts would suggest this blog is designed to attack Republicans during the current election season. That's not actually the case.
The point here is to support and enlarge the text of my book (WHAT'S WRONG WITH US), which is about how structures and cognitive habits of the human brain cause us to fall down in the process of leading a reasonable life. (Reality is just a crutch, right?)
Can I help it if the Republican candidates provide me with a great deal of material. No, I cannot.
So here's more Trump bashing:
The fellow has made the statement he would be a greatly subdued person if elected President. I think a large proportion of his supporters are going to be bitterly disappointed if they put him in office. They like who he is right now, but he says he's not going to be that guy.
Isn't that a form of voter fraud?
Also, Trump has tweeted out a threat to sue Ted Cruz over the "birther" issue—if the guy doesn't stop attacking him. But how could Cruz's attitude toward Trump affect the legality of his ability to perform the office of President if elected?
Sounds like blackmail to me.
More human news: With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Republicans in Congress say they will consider no candidate brought forward by President Obama. They want to wait and let the next President control the future of the Court.
I guess they expect to win.
Meanwhile, the Court is likely to split 4-4 on many of the controversial issues before it, thus paralyzing the judicial process.
And what if a Democrat wins in November? Will the Republican-controlled Senate ever approve a Democrat's nominee to the Court? With the prevailing attitude in Congress ("My way or the highway"), we might have to wait years to achieve an alignment of Republican or Democratic control of both Congress and the White House.
Maybe all the Presidential candidates, both Republican and Democrat, could agree on a moderate swing-vote candidate ahead of the election—and get that person confirmed right away. Would that even be possible?
It's doubtful.
The problem is that human beings all know they're right about any given issue. What's more, everything they see backs them up. Why would anybody ever compromise?
I saw this on a coffee mug: "I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."
Beneath all this ridiculous behavior is the incredibly flimsy process of memory and decision.
Studies have revealed a simple magnetic pulse can cause a person to switch choices in an either-or situation. The experimental subject still maintains he has free will (even though his decision was shanghaied). He'll even make up a story to explain the "reasoning" behind his position, creating new and bogus memories in the process.
The fact is, our memories are so vulnerable to manipulation we ought not rely on them for anything.
Every time a memory is relived, the details have to be re-implanted in the brain. You actually need to grow new neural pathways. Unfortunately, this "reconsolidation" process leaves us open to memory revision.
Take phobias, for instance, which involve memories laced with fear. You can remove the fear component by bringing up the memory, then giving the subject a blood-pressure medicine called propranolol hydrochloride. This drug blocks noradrenaline in the amygdala, preventing the fear factor from being included in the reconstructed memory.
Folks deathly afraid of spiders are soon petting a tarantula in the doctor's office.
More bad news: A researcher named Julia Shaw (London South Bank University) has had remarkable success implanting false memories in test subjects, using simple social pressure and directed imagination. Seventy percent of the group came out believing they had performed a specific illegal act earlier in their lives. Now, thanks to Shaw, they can remember it in some detail.
Turns out they weren't the good person they thought they were.
Hey, maybe we could implant enough false memories of shady behavior into a potential candidate he would be afraid to run for President.
Yeah, like that's going to stop anybody.
Those guys know if they keep their mouths shut, there's a good chance their bad behavior will never come to light. And if it did, they're prepared to explain it all away.
After all, explaining stuff away is a politician's bread and butter.
The point here is to support and enlarge the text of my book (WHAT'S WRONG WITH US), which is about how structures and cognitive habits of the human brain cause us to fall down in the process of leading a reasonable life. (Reality is just a crutch, right?)
Can I help it if the Republican candidates provide me with a great deal of material. No, I cannot.
So here's more Trump bashing:
The fellow has made the statement he would be a greatly subdued person if elected President. I think a large proportion of his supporters are going to be bitterly disappointed if they put him in office. They like who he is right now, but he says he's not going to be that guy.
Isn't that a form of voter fraud?
Also, Trump has tweeted out a threat to sue Ted Cruz over the "birther" issue—if the guy doesn't stop attacking him. But how could Cruz's attitude toward Trump affect the legality of his ability to perform the office of President if elected?
Sounds like blackmail to me.
More human news: With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Republicans in Congress say they will consider no candidate brought forward by President Obama. They want to wait and let the next President control the future of the Court.
I guess they expect to win.
Meanwhile, the Court is likely to split 4-4 on many of the controversial issues before it, thus paralyzing the judicial process.
And what if a Democrat wins in November? Will the Republican-controlled Senate ever approve a Democrat's nominee to the Court? With the prevailing attitude in Congress ("My way or the highway"), we might have to wait years to achieve an alignment of Republican or Democratic control of both Congress and the White House.
Maybe all the Presidential candidates, both Republican and Democrat, could agree on a moderate swing-vote candidate ahead of the election—and get that person confirmed right away. Would that even be possible?
It's doubtful.
The problem is that human beings all know they're right about any given issue. What's more, everything they see backs them up. Why would anybody ever compromise?
I saw this on a coffee mug: "I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."
Beneath all this ridiculous behavior is the incredibly flimsy process of memory and decision.
Studies have revealed a simple magnetic pulse can cause a person to switch choices in an either-or situation. The experimental subject still maintains he has free will (even though his decision was shanghaied). He'll even make up a story to explain the "reasoning" behind his position, creating new and bogus memories in the process.
The fact is, our memories are so vulnerable to manipulation we ought not rely on them for anything.
Every time a memory is relived, the details have to be re-implanted in the brain. You actually need to grow new neural pathways. Unfortunately, this "reconsolidation" process leaves us open to memory revision.
Take phobias, for instance, which involve memories laced with fear. You can remove the fear component by bringing up the memory, then giving the subject a blood-pressure medicine called propranolol hydrochloride. This drug blocks noradrenaline in the amygdala, preventing the fear factor from being included in the reconstructed memory.
Folks deathly afraid of spiders are soon petting a tarantula in the doctor's office.
More bad news: A researcher named Julia Shaw (London South Bank University) has had remarkable success implanting false memories in test subjects, using simple social pressure and directed imagination. Seventy percent of the group came out believing they had performed a specific illegal act earlier in their lives. Now, thanks to Shaw, they can remember it in some detail.
Turns out they weren't the good person they thought they were.
Hey, maybe we could implant enough false memories of shady behavior into a potential candidate he would be afraid to run for President.
Yeah, like that's going to stop anybody.
Those guys know if they keep their mouths shut, there's a good chance their bad behavior will never come to light. And if it did, they're prepared to explain it all away.
After all, explaining stuff away is a politician's bread and butter.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)