Dr. Forbush Thinks

In my most recent piece on dishonesty I compared politicians and used car salesmen. What I was trying to communicate in the piece is that dishonesty is not a “black and white” thing. As Americans we accept the fact that a salesman, regardless of what he or she is selling will put their product in the most favorable light. We know this and accept it as a fact. Putting a product in a favorable light may or may not be deception. And, it may or may not be dishonest. I tried to be clear, but one reader told me that Bill Clinton’s father was a used car salesman. I assume that is a fact, but I don’t know anything about Bill Clinton’s father so I can’t really comment one way or the other.

But, what difference does it make whether Bill Clinton’s father was a used car salesman? I know that the reader didn’t like what I wrote, so I assume that he was trying to point out the fact that I must have liked Bill Clinton, therefore the guy I liked was fathered by someone I didn’t like, namely a used car salesman.

There are many problems with these assumptions. First of all, Bill Clinton was a better president than George W Bush, but it doesn’t mean that Bill Clinton was my favorite president of all time. Both of these guys have enormous flaws, but these are the guys that were able to make it through the political process that we have in this country. One of the main problems we face is the US political process. Perhaps Bill Clinton made it through the political process because he had a father that was a used car salesman. In fact, the point of my essay was how both politicians and used car salesmen use a form of dishonesty in selling their wares. That fact is that even John McCain’s straight talk express ran out of steam because he couldn’t maintain his straight talk amid all the truthiness.

Little did Sammy Cahn or Jimmy Van Huessen realize that Americans are so much in love with the idea of High Hopes. In fact, Americans praise the idea of High Hopes in such an idealized way that it is often viewed as a sin to be realistic about the motives of both our salesmen and our politicians. When a politician comes along and starts to tell us what we want to hear we begin to believe them even more, because we have such High Hopes that we believe that we have finally found that rare beast, the honest politician.

But, the problem is that the politicians and the salesmen have all been singing a different tune. Instead they are listening to Bing Crosby croon out Johnny Mercer and Harold Arlen’s song. They are accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative. It’s all in the eye of the beholder and reality doesn’t matter. And, the real danger happens when we combine the reality of these two philosophies put forth in these two songs.

If we have a public with high hopes looking for a politician to fulfill those hopes they are willing to accept whatever they can find. Then you introduce a politician who is accentuating the positive and hiding the negative the best he can. In this situation we end up with political pretenders who offer only faces that look like what America wants and in which America is willing to accept with those high hopes. Of course none of this is based in reality.

And, this takes us back to the advertisers. When the advertisers tell us about their amazing wares we never believe their claims without skepticism. We all know that most soda is favored carbonated sugar water, but we allow the advertisers tell us about the magically property of this drink. We like the flavor and the hype so we continue to accept the claims of the advertisers, even though most of us have realized long ago that drinking this magic potion doesn’t really change our lives as the advertisers suggest. But advertisers continue to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative in everything that America sees. How else could we become such an obese nation? When the positive tastes so good, why should we think about the negative of a few hundred extra pounds?

So, what is going on in a soft drink ad? What are the advertisers telling us, and are they being dishonest? Are they using deception or are they committing fraud? And, why do we allow the ads to influence our buying habits?

Advertisers don’t tell us that drinking soda may lead to obesity. But the simple equation of 3500 calories equals one pound of fat and 200 calories per 12 oz. of soda should lead us to some frightening conclusions. One 12 oz. soda per day could lead to 2 pounds extra per month if nothing else changed in your diet or exercise habits. And soft drink advertisers would have you drink many more than one 12 oz. soda per day. There are big gulps of 64 oz. that we are encouraged to drink. Think about it, 3 big gulps are going to become one pound of fat. A big gulp per day is 10 pounds of fat per month. So, is it fraud to leave this information for the buyer to figure out? Obesity doesn’t just come from soft drinks, the soft drink companies may claim. They are not the only ones responsible. Why should they tarnish their accentuation of the positive with that unwanted negative information?

Every company does this. It isn’t just used car salesmen and politicians. But, like your parents said when you told them that, “everyone’s doing it,” “would you jump off a bridge, if everyone was doing it?”

All that I was trying to say with my dishonesty post was that dishonesty is an accepted form of sales technique. Everyone knows that they should be skeptical when the salesmen sound “too good.” Rush Limbaugh might makes “conservative values” sound like a panacea. Al Franken might makes Rush Limbaugh sound like a big fat idiot. But, these political sales people are trying to get their policy across and the policy just isn’t as good as it gets. Political policy has winners and losers in the most general cases. Sometimes the rich win and the poor loose. Sometimes the smart people win and the stupid people loose. Sometimes the government tries to fix the inequality and sometimes they fail miserably. The only way that these policies can be kept in check is for Americans to care about the political policy. Then they can make sure that they don’t get ripped off to badly, or else we’ll just have a government that tells you that they know what’s good for those who do care.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

Abracadabra is the magic word that makes things go your way. Magical thinking means that you believe in the magic word that makes everything all right. We have all seen magicians use their magic words and make the world bend to their whims. So, we all must believe in magic, right?

Ya, Right!

In the real world we all know that magic is based on illusion. Magic is a performance art where the magician deceives the audience by creating an idea that is believable to the viewer, until the trick is performed and the audience sees what it can not believe. And, politics is all about the same thing - deception.

If you have turned on the TV, read the newspaper or listened to the radio in the last week you are aware of the dangerous escalation of the US troops in Iraq. President George W Bush announced this escalation as a surge in troops that is needed to quell the insurgents, bring order to society and help the infant Iraqi government establish legitimacy. We are all aware of the number of troops needed to accomplish this magic. The president himself reached into his hat and pulled out the magic number and told us that 21,500 troops would be the magic word. In the buildup to his now famous talk the number for the troop increase was tossed around. “Maybe 10,000 troops could be added,” one talk show host suggested. At another time I heard a talk show host, suggest that between 10,000 and as high as 20,000 troops could be added in a temporary surge. Well, by the time the president gave his speech we knew that the top end would be around 20,000 troops. So, when George W Bush announced an increase of 21,500 troops we all knew that he was serious about this conflict in Iraq.

But, is this really such a change from the status quo? How have troop levels varied over the course of the war? How do we know if this is such a big deal if we don’t know how much this is changing the “stay the course” strategy that has failed so far?

Well, we know that the current troop levels are at about 132,000 total as of January, 2007. This number has been thrown around so that everyone knows what we are dealing with. But, how have troop levels varied in the course of this war, at least for the US.

In 2003 the troop levels fell off, as we believed that looting and pilaging of the country was an Iraqi police matter and not a concern for the US military.

May 150,000
June 150,000
July 149,000
August 139,00
September 132,000
October 131,000
November 123,000
December 122,000

In 2004 we realized that we needed more troops in Iraq, because we began to fight the insurgents who did not like the idea of their country being occupied by foriegners.

January 122,000
February 115,000
March 130,000
April 137,000
May 138,000
June 138,000
July 140,000
August 140,000
September 138,000
October 138,000
November 138,000
December 148,000

In 2005 the troop numbers continued to rise to their maximum at the end of 2005. This troop increase has been explained as necessary to keep the peace for the Iraqi elections.

January 150,000
February 155,000
March 150,000
April 142, 000
May 138,000
June 135,000
July 138,000
August 138,000
September 138,000
October 152,000
November 160,000
December 160,000

In 2006 the number of troops fell off and surged over the years with amplitude of about 10,000 troops.

January 136,000
February 133,000
March 133,000
April 132,000
May 132,000
June 126,900
July 130,000
August 138,000
September 144,000
October 144,000
November 140,000

So, when George W Bush increases the troops with his 21,500 troops we will have a total of 132 + 21.5 = 153.5 thousand troops. Are 153,500 troops really much different than the number of troops we have had all along? Did the surge to 160,000 troops for two months at the end of 2005 really change very much? How can we expect this similar surge to do much? Isn’t this just another elaborate deception created in order for George W Bush to make us believe that doing the same thing is actually doing something different?

But, if we actually look at the facts here it looks like Bush has painted himself into a corner with this illusion. If you think about this, George W Bush is claiming that doing the same old song and dance is really something new. Now the Democrats and some of the Republicans in congress have taken him up on his illusion suggesting that it is irresponsible to increase the number of troops in such a policy failure. So, the faux choice has now become choose Bush’s plan to escalate troop levels, which really means to keep them the same. And, choose to keep the troop levels the same, which will result in a win for the Doves on this issue, even if the troop levels end up creeping up as they have in the past anyway.

This entire troop level argument illustrates the way the politicians end up doing what they want while they change what they say to the public.


-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

Rasmussen Reports is a polling place that keeps track of the President’s approval rating on a very consistent and regular basis. The keep a running poll based on the response from the previous three nights. They also ask the same question in the same way every night. From their web site they explain what they ask, and how it may give different results than other polling places.

At Rasmussen Reports, we ask if people Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, or Strongly Disapprove of the way the President is performing his job. This approach, in the current political environment, yields results about 3-4 points higher than if we simply ask if people if they approve or disapprove (we have tested this by asking the question both ways on the same night). Presumably, this is because some people who are a bit uncomfortable saying they “Approve” are willing to say they “Somewhat Approve.” It’s worth noting that, with our approach, virtually nobody offers a “Not Sure” response when asked about the President.

Today’s numbers (35% Approval and 61% Disapproval) are not entirely from the polling taken after the president made his famous “escalation” speech. But even with only 2/3 of the data being taken after the president’s speech we see that his slight upward trend from recent days has been arrested in its tracks. The president’s approval at Rasmussen had been hovering at about 40% for many months now with only slight fluctuations. But, in recent days his approval had begun to climb to about 45%. I suspect that this climb had been due to a favorable anticipation of his speech on “What to do next in Iraq.” People had held out hope that George W Bush would finally make a sensible decision and do the right thing. Obviously all hope has been lost and the disillusioned people who had held some hope in what he might say have finally realized that there is no hope.

But an interesting highlight to these numbers is that the number of people who strongly approve of what the president is doing has finally fallen from the impenetrable 20% mark. These were the people who had stuck with the president no matter what he did. Katrina did not effect this number. Nothing had ever moved this number until the speech that he made on Wednesday night. With 2/3 of the polling taken after this speech his “strongly approve” number has fallen to 16%. Tonight’s data will be added to the mix and the true effect of his speech will be seen tomorrow at Rasmussen Reports.

But, the sad thing is that even though so few people respect this guy. Even fewer agree with him. And, there isn’t much that we can do about it. The Democrats have control of Congress and they can finally ask him the questions that most of us would like to have answered. And, most people would be embarrassed when all of their faults and failures are put out there for us all to see. In such an event most people would realize that they need to fix the problems and they would be willing to listen to the experts and correct their failures. Some people do not need the public pressure, but unfortunately some people do. This works for most sane people. The problem here is that we do not have a sane President in the White House. We do not have an administration that listens to the experts and makes rational decisions. Instead we have an administration that is disillusioned with hubris. This administration believes that they know the right answers despite what the experts have told them. So, this means that no one can change the course that we are on despite the efforts that we continue to be made.

So, with two days out of three in polling since the fated speech we can say that the public has not been convinced by the president. But, of course, this will never matter to the man who doesn’t read and doesn’t care what the polls or experts say.


-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

Finally we agree that the mess in Mesopotamia is not getting any better by staying the course. General Shinseki told us that we needed over 350 thousand soldiers in Iraq after the invasion in order to maintain stability of the country. Of course he was encouraged to retire shortly after disagreeing with the Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. The Bush administration tells the public that they listen to their Generals, but they certainly didn’t listen to General Shinseki, and they are currently paying the price.

Of course General Shinseki wasn’t the only General to voice his opinion to the administration and find their opinions ignored and their commands changed to something more suitable. George W Bush has recently rearranged his Iraq team in order to make sure that he had Generals in charge the agreed with his Iraq policy. Instead of using the practical experience from the Generals in the field, George W Bush has chosen to find the Generals that agree with him and appoint them to the top positions in this conflict. With this strategy we will never have a victory in any war let alone the conflict in Iraq. Of course, George W Bush has failed at every business opportunity that he has ever tried, so we shouldn’t be surprised by this at all.

So, we are stuck with George W Bush’s “Stay the Course” strategy. We will continue to send soldiers into the al Qaeda firing range where the terrorists have been traveling to this zone in order to hone their terrorist skills. We offer the targets and al Qaeda offers the troops to be trained. With Bush’s “new” plan he has decided to increase the number of targets to be sent to Iraq. We have not decided as a country to “win” this war, because that would require 350 thousand troops as General Shinseki has estimated. And, if we can’t win, why are we taking on this suicide mission?

The options are clear. We can decide to win, which requires sending over 200 thousand more troops to Iraq. Since we do not have these troops we would require a draft to get these troops. We need to raise the money needed to fight this war. And we need to commit to victory and do whatever it takes. If we do not do this, and there is very little will in the American public to do this we need to figure out how we leave Iraq and keep the country as stable as possible in do so. This is what the Iraq Study Group illustrated in their report.

These are the two valid options. George W Bush has chosen the wimp option. He doesn’t want to pick the winning strategy, because that would cost the Republicans political power for many years to come if it fails. And, he doesn’t want to “cut and run” because he has defined this option as a non-starter and he doesn’t have the integrity to do the right thing. We are stuck with this idiot in the Oval Office, and we will continue to suffer with him in charge. This is “bad.” But the really sad thing is that he has signed the death warrants for a large number of American troops that will pay the ultimate price for his wimpy decision.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

"To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making."- Otto von Bismarck

With the golden sword in hand the Democrats finally have the power to make the laws that they had wanted to make for the last 12 years or so. But, one often wonders why the minority party has such little influence over making laws. After all, the minority party represents almost half of the voters no matter which election we are discussing, because most votes in most districts are often that close. If Democracy really had anything to do with the will of the people, or establishment of laws for the common good we could imagine the two political parties working together for the common good. Or, we could imagine representatives crossing back and forth across the aisle depending on the issue and how it effects his or her district.

The problem, however, is that many politicians become at first infatuated and then in love with political power. They realize that they can make things happen, or better yet prevent things from happening because of their actions. It isn’t only about voting on laws, it is also about writing the laws.

Imagine an example of a local law funding a way to save little kittens abandoned in the city. How is the law written? First, lawmakers need to define the scope of the law. What about adult cats, do they get assistance? Who pays for the service? Who is allowed to collect the money for providing a service? How much money is the maximum allowed?

Perhaps a simple law is written that mandates that $10,000.00 is allocated from the city’s general fund to be paid to the local veterinarians $25.00 per documented kitten or cat if the vet proves that they had the animal spade or neutered and vaccinated then given to the local animal shelter. Whether this law makes sense in reality is irrelevant for this discussion. The point is that the local lawmakers want to do something to help take care of the ferrule cats in the city. Maybe this law is great as written, but other lawmakers need to determine that. So, the law comes up to be presented before the city council. Now, it could be voted on, or it could be amended.

Suppose a lawmaker does not like the idea of spending money on these cats, but he doesn’t want to be called a cat hater by his constitutes. How can he vote against the law and keep his loyal voters? Well instead of voting against the law at the end he can add an amendment. If he adds an amendment that he does not like he can vote against the law. For example, he might add to this law the provision that dogs that are caught by the public could be brought in and put to death. The person bringing the dog in could also be paid $25.00.

Don’t be surprised by the construction of a law that offers to both saves cats and kills dogs, because lawmakers do things like this all the time, even if they are not as blatant as this example. A lawmaker can concentrate on one aspect of the law and use that reason for justifying a vote for or against the law. If other lawmakers add additional amendments that law may become complex and the result of the law might not be clear. But, also the lawmakers can even use the vote of one lawmaker against him in an upcoming election. A lawmaker intending to save cats and votes for the law might be called a dog killer in the election because of the other aspect of the law. Lawmakers might decide that the provision of paying for the destruction of dogs doesn’t matter, because they have determined that very few dogs would be turned in and many cats would be saved.

In real life lawmakers pass laws that can specifically help one or two companies while regulating an industry in another way. They can give tax breaks, or make it legal to hire non-Americans for specific work. Getting your own personal law made usually costs something. It might be a campaign contribution or the promise of your influence to tell the union to vote for the lawmaker in the next election. In this way laws can become extremely complicated and sometimes incomprehensible. And, most troublesome is the fact that the laws are not written with the “common good” in mind.

The Republicans made a big deal out of Democratic special interests that had influenced the making of laws over their reign in Congress. But, the point is that Republicans gained power and worked for their own special interests. Neither political party seems to have the common good of all Americans at heart when they write the laws. And, both parties want to maintain power, so they don’t like the submission of amendments from the opposing political party. If they did, there would be even more laws like the example above.

This being said, I have to mention that not all lawmakers behave in these ways. In fact, California Governor Schwarzenegger surprised me with his state of the state speech yesterday. Being a Republican I would have expected that he would be pushing the Republican agenda. But, yesterday he decided that the state actually wanted him to solve problems and work with the people. He told us that he will work to pass California Health Care reform, a typical Democratic issue. He told us that he wants to continue the California fight against Global Warming, regardless of what the Bush administration is pontificating. In fact, if the Governor didn’t have a political label on him I would be prone to call him a moderate Democrat instead of a Republican based on his agenda for 2007. Arnold has made the most amazing political turn around of any politician I have ever seen. He has listened to the people of California and responded to their needs. He is actually working for the “common good” of California and it is certainly visible. It is certainly too bad that more Republicans haven’t heard the message.

Tonight George W Bush will make his long awaited Iraq speech. Based on the leaks from the White House and the reactions from those privy to the knowledge I expect that George W Bush is about to embark on his next failure. Even though I am almost certain that President Bush will not learn from Governor Schwarzenegger’s example I can only hope and pray that he does listen. Americans do not want an escalation of the debacle in Iraq.








-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

When the Republicans took over the US House of Representatives in 1994 they decided to shut out the Democrats at every possible level. This didn’t surprise anyone, because the Democrats had done the same over their reign as Kings of the House. As the Republicans maintained power they opted to strengthen their power in many different ways. Republicans claimed they had a mandate to do this because the voters chose to put them in power.

One of the ways that they did this were by gerrymandering congressional districts to give them a better chance of maintaining a majority in the House of Representatives. They did this recently in Texas where they claimed an off cycle redistricting in order to strengthen their hold on congress. Of course the Democrats had done similar things in the past, but many have argued that these “sure win” districts resulted in the polarization that we currently have in congress, because winning the Republican primary by going to the extreme right or winning the Democrat primary by going to the extreme left often left the winning with no competition in the general election - the district would vote one way or the other regardless of the extreme nature of the candidate.

Another way the Republicans increased their power was by dominating the lobbyists on K Street. The demanded that no Republican would be allowed to deal with a lobbyist that also dealt with a Democrat. This resulted in more perks flowing to the party in charge and less perks flowing to the minority party. Of course this backfired in the Abramoff scandal when very few Democrats had even met with Jack Abramoff compared to the huge number of Republicans that did.

But, the most notorious way that the Republicans controlled the Democrats was by killing any bill that the Republicans didn’t like in committee. Democrats didn’t have a voice in the House of Representatives in any practical way. Democrats could not even get their ideas into the public discourse if they didn’t match the predetermined Republican agenda. Only politically expedient bills could make it through committee, like the life threatening “flag burning” bill. Or the dangerous “gay marriage” bills. The only controversial bill that was introduced was the “immigration” legislation that was forced onto the public stage by the far right extremists who claimed to want to protect our country. And, the more moderate Republicans finely grew a spine and stood up to the xenophobic proposals.

So, I find it quite strange that the Republicans are sending up the political balloon about the Democrats wishing to silence the Republicans. Sure, we are going to get less “flag burning” and “gay bashing” bills introduced into the legislative debate. This is a good thing, because these bills were only meant to polarize the country even further than it has already become. Any action of the Democrats to move toward a less polarizing government could easily be viewed by extremists as an attempt to silence the minority. But, hopefully the Democrats will be able to define the debate and pull the country together. If they want this president to sign any of their bills into law they have no choice but to move to the center.

Finally, I just need to make one strong statement on this issue: Quit your whining Republicans and get on with the job of government!



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

Some vacations are dedicated to travel. Some vacations are dedicated to visiting family or entertaining family. Some vacations are dedicated to celebrations. Some vacations are dedicated to doing nothing at all, but my most recent vacation was different.

I tend to be a very reflective person. People don’t generally tend to share their personal reflections, mainly because truthful personal reflections tend to reveals flaws in the way a person is living their life. People don’t like to admit to flaws, personal flaws, character flaws, family flaws or national identity flaws. Admitting to a flaw requires change, and change requires work. People generally don’t like making more work for themselves than they already have. Admitting to a flaw requires making a difficult change that may be more difficult than is expected, and committing to that change may result in another failure - the failure to change an admitted flaw. This is all tough stuff and it can too easily reveal weakness.

Reflection does not always needs to be so difficult. Some reflections are much easier. Obvious reflections often result in obvious resolutions. New Years is the traditional time in our culture to pledge the obvious changes. We don’t need deep reflections to pledge to lose weight or eat healthier. Surface reflections in a wall mirror are often enough to show these flaws. Since these flaws are also shown publicly, they can not be hidden, so people find it much easier to pledge to reform these flaws, and accept failure to reform as well.

My recent vacation was a reflective vacation. I looked at myself, my family and my nation. What was different than my normal reflective actions was that I didn’t immediately write down my reflections at every thought. Instead, I thought and reflected without an immediate response. The only writing that I did over my entire vacation was in response to a blog on one’s innate ability to distinguish between “good” and “evil.”

What was strange was that I didn’t jump to conclusions or come to an immediate opinion on some of the big news stories over the last two weeks. And, there were several interesting events that deserved comments: The death of President Ford, the death of Saddam Hussein, the changes in laws that went into effect on January 1, 2007 and several other important events. The problem is that I have “hard wired” responses to ingrained in my psyche to these events, and I believe that some of these events might deserve more than a “hard wired” reflexive response. I began to think about why my reflective response was the way that it was. Why did I respond the way that I did on an emotional level? And, most importantly, was my reflexive response a fair response, or should I have considered something else that I hadn’t considered?

It isn’t like I was going to change my whole political outlook by reflecting on these major political events. But, I also know that it is quite dangerous to have an automatic response to any major event of any kind. After all, we should be well aware that the automatic response of our politicians after 9/11/2001 has damaged the reputation of the United States in the view of the wider world. Perhaps if our politicians had not been so automatic we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today. Perhaps the lack of reflection of our politicians should be a lesson for us to keep at heart. And, perhaps I need to continue to reflect on why I think about the world the way I do.

I hope that I will eventually write about the presidency of Gerald Ford and the revenge killing of Saddam Hussein. I certainly have a piece in mind about the minimum wage increase here in California, and some of the stupid laws that just went into effect on January 1, 2007. I still have my opinions, which my reflections have re-affirmed. I have also begun thinking about the problems we face in Iraq regardless of whether we should be there or not. I can’t really say that my mind has changed much, even though I believe that I have honestly reflected on many of the facts, opinions and ideas that others have about these things. I have read and reflected on many of the conservative writings on these things that I may not have dealt with as fairly as I should have in the past. I watched and interesting round table debate last night on what it means to be an American that included the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I can’t say that I was comforted by his opinion on this subject, but at least I know how this very important person feels about this very important subject. In fact, I wasn’t comforted by many of the things I read by those on the right side of the political spectrum.
The interesting thing about this reflection was that I realized that some of my opinions may have been a bit exaggerated. I have found that there are conservatives that I have disagreed with in the past who are not as crazy as I once thought. These people have voiced sanity in the face of the extremes of some of the lunatics out there. I found that there are moderates on the right side of the political spectrum. I also found that there are also extremists on the left side of the political spectrum. I had known this, but after spending the last three years fighting the extremists on the right it is important to remember this fact.

The most important thing about my personal refection is that I need to remember the perils of not reflecting on what people are saying before constructing an automatic response. These automatic responses may be used against us as they have been in the past. And, these automatic responses may be one of the fearsome dangers that we all face and ironically all have the power to control.





-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection