Happy Holidays

I welcome any greeting offered in kindness and goodwill this season, as I do throughout the year.  

If I know you are a fellow Christian, I may wish you ‘Merry Christmas’, ‘Happy Christmas’, Joyeux Noël, Feliz Navidad, Fröhliche Weihnachten, or the like.  I love the warmth shared traditions.   

If I know you are celebrating a different holiday, and I know the appropriate greeting, I will offer that, in a spirit of friendship.  Though our traditions may be different, I respect yours, and wish you well. 

If I’m not sure if or what you are celebrating, I will likely fall back on ‘Happy Holidays’.  I prefer that to risking something that may cause you to feel out of place.  There is much we may all celebrate together without invading one another's privacy.   

But if you are one of those who wears his Christianity like gang colors, and carries hostility toward any whose greeting doesn’t precisely comply with your preferred phrasing I would prefer to avoid you; we’ll both be better for it.  Barring that, I will probably just say hello.  I will try to neither validate, nor trigger your sad little anger addiction.  

But be assured, I will pray for you.  

Total Consensus

One of my father's favorite sayings was that 'any time two people agree on everything, only one of them is doing any thinking.' 

I personally think that gives too much benefit of the doubt to the one.  

My main objection to that kind of unanimity of views is that it's just boring.  

Backward, and in Heels

It is said of Ginger Rogers that she had to do everything Fred Astaire did – but backward, and in heels.  

As you watch the presidential debate this evening, consider the difference in your expectations of the two candidates.  Particularly, consider the idiosyncratic behavior of each, and how you would view it if each exhibited the behavior we expect from the other.  

How would you react if Hillary Clinton exhibited wild flights of fantasy, proposed internally inconsistent massive program expansions, tax cuts, and an aggressive program of deficit reduction, without ever addressing how these can all be implemented at once?  Or if she tossed out a string of horrible insults about her opponent’s appearance, or that of one of his family members?  

On the other hand, how stunned would you be if Donald Trump listened carefully to the question, addressed it directly and clearly, with a well thought-out, reality-based program to address a problem our society faces.  And if there were a follow-up question that took him off his prepared talking points, if he was able to respond in a way that reflects a depth of understanding of the issue.  
Yes, she will have to dance ‘backward, and in heels’ this evening.  And one advantage Ginger Rogers always enjoyed that Hillary Clinton does not … nobody in the audience harbored a visceral hatred for Ginger Rogers, and prayed for her failure.  

Compulsive Liars

We don’t typically think of a child who is a compulsive liar as having ‘special needs’, other than maybe a spanking, (or maybe a more civilized ‘time-out’).  But compulsive lying can be a symptom of much deeper problems, which, if not addressed properly, can continue into adulthood.  

A child who is a compulsive liar may invent a lie, even when it serves no useful purpose; present this sometimes outlandish fantasy as truth, and hold to it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that refutes it.  Then, when even the liar is forced to admit its falsehood – he will minimize his role in promoting the lie, blaming somebody else for starting it.  The child may, for example, claim that a playmate’s father had been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy – then claim that he was just passing on something he read in a respected publication … like the National Enquirer.  Or he might claim that a playmate had been born on Mars, stick with the story for a long time, and then when threatened with punishment, claim that another playmate had started the story.  

Untreated, the compulsive liar grows into an emotionally crippled adult, who may have never developed the ability to distinguish between his lies and reality.  If he is charismatic (and many are), he may succeed in lying his way to the top of the corporate ladder or even achieve high political office, but he leaves behind a legacy of personal and professional destruction – and it never ends well.  In the end, the only question is who, and what organization, he brings down with him.  

If we hope to help this person, it is likely counterproductive to elect him president.  

The Lesser of Two Evils

If your first choice is eliminated, and in your pique,
you refuse to support what you consider the ‘Lesser of Two Evils’,
you contribute by default to the success of the Greater.

Or, to put it another way (with apologies to Edmund Burke);
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for’ disappointed Bernie supporters to stay home, or vote third party.

WWBD?

Celebrity Obsession

The problem isn’t whether an entertainer chooses to remain seated during the playing of the national anthem – nor is the problem whether fans express their approval or disapproval of his choice.  If these are not protected by the First Amendment, then it’s not worth the parchment on which it was written.  

IMHO the problem is that our culture has become so barren that we obsess on the actions, or inactions of celebrities.  We ridiculously over-reward, and deify people who accomplish nothing more profound than throwing or catching a football, running very fast, or hitting a golf ball a little further than their opponents – then reveal our passive-aggressive hatred for them by mob destruction as soon as they stray from our script.  

Whether you think Colin Kaepernick is hero or a villain, my advice to you is to not dwell on it.  Go for a walk or a drive; read a book; tell a story, or listen to a story; change your kid’s diaper; check out what you’ve missed in your own life while dwelling on the actions of a stranger.   

Gresham's Law and Politics

Gresham’s Law states that ‘Bad money drives out good’; if counterfeit or debased currency is accepted at face value, people will use it, and will horde their gold, specie, or any other currency with intrinsic value until the counterfeit currency is no longer accepted.  

The same theory applies to political discourse.   

If a position based on research, with a solid foundation of facts, logic, historical precedent, and economic theory is given no more weight than wild delusional pronouncements, grounded in nothing more than the ephemeral whim of the speaker—no sooner spoken than retracted or contradicted—there is a decreased incentive to research and validate positions before publicly stating them.  Research and validation require time and resources; in the absence of a premium for credibility, these investments will not be made.         

Eventually, the only criterion left is entertainment value.  With a credulous audience, hyperbole is the norm; the more outlandish, the better.  As with a counterfeit currency, it more and more extreme claims are required to claim the same attention.

Economic forces eventually reveal the lack of value in a debased currency; leading to its hyperinflation, and eventual extinction.  Unfortunately, the only analogous natural protection against degraded discourse is the common sense, taste, and discernment of the audience – protections which have been sadly eroded in our society.  People become acclimated, and come to not only accept hyperbolic promises and outrageous charges and countercharges – but to insist upon them.  People want to be surprised, which means that each round of invented crises, fantastical promises, ad hominem attacks, and sophomoric insults must exceed the ones before.

In an imaginary, dystopian end-state, one might see this continuing to the point that a presidential debate would include tit-for-tat insinuations about candidates’ penis size, or candidates insulting the attractiveness of each other’s wives.  Worse yet, the participants may even be rewarded for this crude farce.  

William F. Buckley Jr. once said, “There is an implicit conflict of interest between that which is highly viewable and that which is highly illuminating.”  It’s clear that many Americans have opted for the highly viewable; civil, illuminating political discourse is the first casualty.

Fact-Checking Trump; Why Bother?

Another group published a fact-checking report against Donald Trump’s claims – and, as with all the previous checks, the results were abysmal.  

I don’t know why organizations even bother to publish these reports.  Seriously, try to imagine somebody who has ridden the Trump Train up to this point, looking at the results and deciding, “Hell, I can’t support this guy any longer; he’s just making all this shit up!”

No, these people are not (to borrow from Steven Colbert) ‘Factistas’.  Trump’s biggest supporters think, and vote, from the gut.  Highlighting the distance between their hero’s claims and reality makes them really angry; not at Trump, but at reality – further straining an already cold, distant, dysfunctional relationship.  

Funhouse Mirror

One of the highlights to any stop at the county fair is the fun-house mirror – the one with the warped surface that distorts the reflected image.  

When we look in this mirror, we may recognize ourselves, or at least parts of ourselves, but the proportions are all wrong – the face too fat, the neck to long for a stubby body, or the other way around.  It’s fun to move around and jump in front of it, and laugh at how the distortion moves from one part of our body to another.  

Even as we enjoy it, though, it can be disturbing.  Maybe it accentuates something we are already insecure about – or maybe it makes us aware of something we never noticed before.  The big double chin, or walnut-sized wart, is exaggerated all out of proportion; but mirror or not, it makes us face the reality that we have at least a bit of a double chin or a small wart.  Even a distorted reflection is still a reflection, and it can be haunting.  

In movies or on TV, this self-revelation has been used for dramatic effect.  At a point, a character looks in the distorted mirror and has a Twilight-Zone moment; running blindly from the funhouse – forever changed by the image.   

This year, Donald Trump is our nation’s carnival mirror – particularly for Republicans.  The topics he chooses are familiar; a stronger military, balanced budget, cuts to social programs, fear of immigrants, and the threat of global terrorism.  But when he talks about them … there is just something so exaggerated; so dumbed-down and simplistic.  He is so mean-spirited; we want to deny that his grotesque distorted plans are any kind of reflection of what we actually meant.    

The nice thing about a real funhouse mirror is that when you step away, it’s over, and we return to our normal reality.  For most of us, that’s easy; this man is just a sideshow distraction – a freakish oddity that keeps spouting easily-forgotten headlines.  For Republicans though, it’s different.  Though exaggerated and obnoxious, he is their creation.  He is just echoing back what Republican leaders have been saying—and Republican voters have been rewarding—for years; just slightly exaggerated.  The vitriol that mainstream Republicans direct at minorities and foreigners, he spews wildly in all directions, with no regard to consequences.  

These distortions didn't happen overnight.  The craven vacuousness of Trump and the success of his campaign is the inevitable result of a thirty-year downward spiral in civility and intelligent discussion within the national Republican Party – and the acclimation of their constituents.  For better or worse, what intelligent, decent people, who happen to be Republican, have to face with Donald Trump is this: as bizarre, distorted, and grotesque as is the caricature he reflects, a large constituency within their party's coalition—a coalition they must maintain if they hope to win—looks at this hideous image, they don’t want to turn away and run.  They don’t want to leave the fun-house, because, when they look at this freak-show, they like what they see.

Perpetuation of Conflict

All that is necessary for the perpetuation of conflict is this: during and after each incident, everybody involved focuses only the insult or injury done to them—or the justification for their actions against the other—without considering the context, and while denying the possibility that they might have done anything to initiate or exacerbate the conflict. 

This comes into play in international and sectarian conflicts, within nations and parties, and interactions between authorities and citizens – even among family members.  It helps reinforce our negative perception of the ‘other’.  And, safe within our protective walls of denial, we avoid any unsettling deeper examination of the other side that might trigger our own cognitive dissonance.  

This approach works well for purveyors of guns, drugs, alcohol … and fences.