Accepted Demands

Years ago, I was involved in an angry dispute between management and six new employees.  I was one of the six new employees.  A few months after we were hired, we all realized that many of the things we had been promised simply were not going to happen.  As a consequence, every single one of us submitted our resignations.

The CEO of the company quickly summoned us to a meeting, and asked about our grievances.  He seemed sympathetic, and quite surprised that the company had lied to us and completely failed to fulfill their obligations.  He agreed that we would all be justified in quitting, but asked what it would take to get us to stay.  Surprised, we began to lay out our demands.  After each demand, he would agree that it was reasonable, and turn to his second-in-command and instruct him to make it happen.  Eventually, we all agreed to stay, and walked out of the meeting quite pleased with all that we had gained.

Days went by.  Days turned to weeks, and weeks turned to months.  NOTHING CHANGED.  Not one of our demands was ever met; nothing that the CEO agreed to ever actually happened.

To this day, I do not know what transpired.  All of us eventually left.  I do not know whether we were consciously deceived, more than once, or if the CEO truly BELIEVED the changes would be made at the time he agreed to them, and then decided against it.  Or perhaps the CEO's instructions were never carried out.  I truly don't know.  Looking back, it has taken on a dream-like quality.  It's hard to believe they would agree to ALL of our demands, yet fulfill NONE of them.

Intentional or not, it was an amazing strategy.  We entered the meeting disappointed, disgusted, and truly ready to quit.  We left the meeting feeling happy, even elated, and ready to resume our duties with renewed vigor.  We truly felt that someone had listened, and we had "won", despite all later evidence to the contrary.

When I tell other people about this incident, they seem shocked, even disbelieving, but I have come to conclude it is a variation on a fairly common occurence.  Perhaps a more blatant version, but still, something that occurs commonly, and not just in negotiations.

Psychologically, it's much more complicated than simply broken promises.  We went from being frustrated, disappointed, angry, and ready for a fight, to being pleased, relaxed, and feeling quite victorious.  The fact that these feelings eventually were proved to be unjustified did not completely wipe them away, and the old feelings of anger never completely returned.  Actually, it goes back to the idea of "cooling the mark out" -- making the victim of a con feel less bad about being victimized.

I have witnessed the same phenomenon at modern slot machines, when flashing lights and ringing bells convince the gambler that he or she has "won" -- when perhaps the gambler has "won" two cents on a forty-or-fifty cent bet.

Recently, my mind keeps returning to this idea as I watch President Obama, and especially as I watch videos of President Obama from months and years past.  Somehow, President Obama seems almost immune from the charge of "broken promises".  Instead, he seems to be able to make people feel, at least on some level, that he has done exactly what he said he WOULD do, or at least to feel good about his promises.

For example, he has repeatedly pledged "openness", promising that his administration would be the most open, transparent in history.  Objectively, his administration has been one of the least open, at least in recent memory -- but on some level, people remain pleased about his openness.  He SAID he would be open, therefore he IS open.

A more specific example: During his first Presidential campaign, he pledged that all potential legislation would be published on the internet for public review days before it was passed.  This pledge has simply been ignored, yet on some level President Obama still gets credit for making the pledge.

Especially frustrating to me is the fact that President Obama routinely stresses that there is general agreement about ideas when the ideas are in fact hotly debated and controversial.  On some level, the public accepts his statement regarding widespread agreement, just as they accept his repeated claims of a "balanced" approach to solving problems, when in fact his approach is generally totally one-sided.

Perhaps I should be looking back at my earlier thoughts regarding stranded travelers.  Perhaps, since there is nothing anyone can DO about the Obama administration, it simply comes down to a choice of being unhappy, or trying to be as happy as possible in a bad situation --  and people are choosing to overlook the disappointing, disturbing facts and instead be happy with promises and misstatements.  Examined from that angle, I don't suppose I should criticize anyone for trying to make the best of a bad Presidency.

Truth is complicated.

Ridiculous

One of the tricks in life is knowing the difference between the ridiculous and the reasonable.

My community has weekly outdoor municipal band concerts during the summer, as they have had for most of the last century.  The concerts are financed by "the city"; band members are considered temporary city employees.  Recently, the city council announced they were making various budget cuts, including ending the concerts.  The concerts don't cost much, so cutting them from the budget didn't save much money, but it was a high-profile cutback -- something that everyone noticed.  A concerned citizen stepped forward with enough money to finance the concerts for several years.  Since that time, more citizens have come forward with cash, and the concerts have continued uninterrupted with no more city funding.  It has all been quite reasonable.

My favorite high school teacher used to regularly include some "joke" answers on his multiple choice history exams.  So, for example, even if a student did not know precisely who the "condottieri" were, he or she might be able to correctly rule out that they were the Superbowl champions from 1970.  You would THINK that this would make the exams slightly easier.  Imagine my surprise in learning that the CORRECT answer to one of the questions was an answer that I had ruled out as a joke, "the Venerable Bede".

This points out the fact that it is not always easy to distinguish between the ridiculous and the reasonable.  People hold a wide variety of beliefs.  I have known for some time that the "Flat Earth Society" continues to exist, at least on paper, but I only recently learned it is not strictly a joke.  There really ARE people who claim to still believe that the earth is flat, just as there are even more people who claim to still believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

Then there is politics.  Some of the positions taken by politicians and their parties and supporters seem to defy all logic, yet there are large numbers of people who accept these positions as reasonable.

The United States government is trillions of dollars in debt, and that debt is growing at a shocking rate, yet many politicians, and regular citizens, argue that we do not have a spending problem.  Meanwhile, President Barack Obama fights any effort to cut spending, arguing that the IMPORTANT thing is to raise taxes on "the rich".  Perhaps after we do THAT, he will be willing to consider spending cuts.

Now we have "the sequester", a set of government spending limits (not necessarily cuts) that kicked in automatically after the various political bodies were unable to reach any better compromise.  Critics of President Obama argued in advance of the sequester that he was misrepresenting the potential impact of the sequester, and would purposely TRY to make the impact as painful as possible.

When the sequester came, it was soon announced that there would be no more tours of the White House, due to funding cuts caused by the sequester.  In response to the public outcry, billionaire Donald Trump eventually offered that he would personally pay for continuing the White House tours (an amount which it seems he could easily afford, based on the available information about his wealth and income, and the cost of the tours).

I would have thought this would be the end of this part of the story.  The American people want to be able to tour their White House, many people want to reduce government spending, President Obama wants "the rich" to pay more, and Donald Trump is rich.  The tours would continue, government spending would be reduced, and the rich would pay more.  Everybody wins.

I was wrong.  A White House "senior adviser" rejected Donald Trump's offer, stating that it is important that the American public learn that there are real consequences of the sequester.  Apparently, we have misbehaved, and now must face the consequences, rather than have rich Donald Trump take care of the problem.

To me, this seems quite ridiculous.  IF cutting the tours was truly necessary for economic reasons, and a rich person is offering to pay for the tours, then why haven't the tours already been restored?  Is the Obama administration really willing to continue to block the tours, just to attempt to teach the American people a lesson?

Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of this issue is that there are those who attacked Donald Trump for making the offer, and defended President Obama.  I am not saying there is nothing to attack about Donald Trump, but if a rich person offers to pay for something, no strings attached, and the President continues to argue that we don't have enough money to pay for it ... it all seems quite ridiculous.  But perhaps I am missing something.  I MUST be missing something.  It CAN'T be that ridiculous.

Trump's offer was many months ago.  Someday soon, the tours will resume, at least on a limited basis, and the Obama administration will take credit, and ask for gratitude, for dealing with a problem that they themselves created.  THAT seems ridiculous.

Truth is complicated.

Trayvon Martin

A young man named Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by another man during an altercation.  The details of the altercation, and the events leading up to the altercation, will never be precisely known.  The shooter claimed self defense; the law allows the use of deadly force to protect your own life.  The man was placed on trial for murder and/or manslaughter, and found "not guilty" of breaking the law.

Given that we are a nation of laws, and a nation that embraces the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", the man is therefore innocent.  Not just "not guilty", but INNOCENT.  Those are the ONLY relevant facts in this case.

I have not stated the shooter's widely-known name, because I believe that it would be better if the names of those charged with crimes were withheld, and only published if they were found guilty.  There is no compelling reason for the name of an innocent person to become public knowledge -- but that is a separate issue, involving freedom of the press.

There are many who would argue that other facts are relevant to this case.  The race, clothing, age, and other attributes of both men MAY have played a role in their thoughts and actions -- but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial.  One or both may have made questionable or even wrong decisions, but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial.  The precise events leading up to the moment of the shooting may be relevant, but, as nearly as they can be legally determined, they do not disprove the idea that the shooter was defending himself.

Given the limitations of human perception and memory, not even the shooter himself knows precisely what happened.  Had Trayvon Martin survived, he also would not know precisely what happened.  IF there was some way of knowing precisely what happened, perhaps the shooter would have been found "guilty".  The jury did their best with the available evidence.  The case SHOULD be closed.

The verdict has been controversial and unpopular.  As I have stated elsewhere, we are facing an epidemic of personal certainty, and many are convinced that THEY know the truth of the case, regardless of the outcome of the trial.  The verdict is politically unpopular, and people in positions of power are threatening to re-examine the case, to try and come up with SOMETHING for which the shooter can be found "guilty".  I fear those people who place their own opinions above the law, and I fear those authorities who feel free to try a case over and over until they can find the defendant guilty of SOMETHING.  It is tragic that a young man died.  It is also tragic if large segments of our society decide that their opinions outweigh our legal process.

Since the verdict, I have heard people loudly complain that the case has negatively impacted race relations and civil rights in America.  At first, I disagreed, but now I find myself totally disgusted by those who would use the tragic death of a teenager to further their own agendas, and I find myself wrongly viewing all black people with suspicion -- NOT with suspicion that they will harm me, but with suspicion that they will ignore the legal truth of this and other cases, and instead focus on all those true but irrelevant details.  Certainly, there is still racism in America -- but there has been no evidence that this case involved racism.

Another troubling fact is that some are using the case to attack "stand your ground" laws.  The case does not involve "stand your ground" laws in any particular way, other than that I suppose ALL laws are somehow related.

The case is complicated and tragic, but the legal truth is straightforward.  The shooter was rightly found not guilty, based on the evidence presented in court.  Given the evidence, any other verdict would have been a miscarriage of justice.  The case is, and should be, closed.

Gun Control

For years, but especially over the last month, I have thought, watched, heard, read, and talked about the subject of school shootings.  I consider the larger, more inclusive issue of "gun control" to be among the most difficult issues of our time -- and by "difficult" I mean that the issue is complicated, with no good, clear solutions or answers, and thoughtful, rational, intelligent, passionate people on various sides.

The thing that makes the more specific issue of school shootings even worse, and the reason I am reluctant to write about it, is that it involves horrible, senseless tragedy.  There is nothing I -- nor anyone else -- can say, write, or do to bring back the victims, or to lessen the overwhelming, crushing pain of the survivors and loved ones of the victims.  In a way, it seems obscene to discuss these incidents in terms of statistics, or intellectual or philosophical arguments.

In fact, I believe quite strongly that there is only ONE thing that we, as a society, can do that will definitely lessen the frequency and number of victims of future school shootings: Quit publicizing them!  Quit showing them on television, quit having national discussions about them.  That is the ONLY sure-fire way to combat them.  However, in a free society, with a free press, that is not going to happen.

So I am left to discuss the issue in mostly in terms of intellectual and philosophical arguments (I will leave the statistics to others, at least for now) -- which is NOT what the loved ones of the victims want to hear, and I cannot blame them.

As with most troubling, divisive, controversial issues, school shootings and gun violence involve a number of related and complicated philosophical issues.  One of the most basic is the issue of control.  As the human race marches forward through time, we like to believe we are achieving increasing control over the world around us.  We do not want to hear that something "just happens" -- we want to assign responsibility and blame, and we want to vow to prevent it from happening again.  In fact, I would argue that one of the more destructive forces in human nature is the need to "do something!"  Often, there is simply nothing to be done -- a fact which few of our political leaders have the courage to embrace.

The most recent school mass shooting particularly lends itself to oversimplification and false arguments.  A few days ago, I heard the President of the United States say something to the effect of, "If we can do something that might save even one life, then we must DO it!"  On the face of it, this is a compelling argument, especially when the President surrounded himself with children as he said it.  On closer examination, it is absurd.  We could save many human lives by banning automobiles, and some by banning all forms of mass transit -- planes, trains, even boats.  Every year, people are electrocuted; we could stop using electricity.  Sporting events account for deaths every year; there is no definite human "need" for sports.  And the list goes on.

I expect that those who agree with the President would counter with the argument that whereas we NEED automobiles and planes and trains and boats and electricity -- and possibly even sports -- there is no compelling "need" for the right to bear arms.  The TRUTH is that the President is NOT simply interested in the possibility of saving a single human life -- he is interested specifically in doing things that he claims may decrease the likelihood of shootings, and only by decreasing the availability of guns.

One of the problems with this discussion is that it easily leads off in many different directions, like a maze.  I COULD focus on the fact that all of the President's ideas are pure conjecture, and while many of them may sound "obvious" there is little objective, factual support for the idea that they might "save even one life".

I will instead focus on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  There continues to be debate over the precise intentions of these words.  In recent decades, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, some attempted to argue that the term "militia" referred to government organizations such as the National Guard.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this point, with George Mason, one of the writers of the amendment, stating, “What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”  Mason also wrote, "“A well-regulated militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army.”  The entire POINT of the Second Amendment is for INDIVIDUALS to retain their firearms so that they might rise up against our own or foreign armies.  Incidentally, this view -- the individual right to bear arms -- has been clarified and accepted by Supreme Court decisions.

In the modern world, we do and require lots of things to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies.  We design our buildings to attempt to withstand floods, earthquakes, storms, and fires.  To prepare for and prevent fires, we install sprinkler systems and smoke detectors, and we have fire extinguishers at the ready.  Our automobiles have seat belts and air bags, and are constructed to protect us from injury in the event of a collision.  These are just a few examples.

My mother, who is 100 years old, has always scoffed at such preparations.  Her general logic is along the lines of, "I have lived in this house for over fifty years, and there has never been a fire, or an earthquake, or a tornado, and therefore there never WILL be, and it is foolish to prepare for such things.  And I have never been in a significant automobile collision where I would have needed seat belts or airbags, so there is no reason for them."  Furthermore, she has never called the police, the fire department, or an ambulance.  Perhaps there is no need for any of these things.

I must confess that I, too, have never had need of seat belts, or airbags, or smoke detectors, or fire extinguishers, yet I accept the fact that they, along with the police, fire department, and ambulance services, are all good ideas.

This is the same way that I view the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the citizens' right to bear arms.  The founders of the United States of America believed quite strongly that circumstances might arise calling for the citizens to have weapons capable of defending against foreign armies or the tyranny of our own government.  That is why they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  They were NOT concerned about being allowed weapons for hunting small game -- they were concerned about being able to fight against other armed humans.

So far, I have never needed to possess an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol to defend myself against tyranny, just as I have never needed seat belts or a fire extinguisher.  I suppose my mother would argue that since I have never needed such weapons, I will never need them.  Still, I accept the fact that they are all good ideas.  I view the concept of banning these weapons just as I would view the concept of banning seat belts or fire extinguishers.  All are intended to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies, and it would be morally wrong -- not to mention stupid -- to eliminate them.

Some will argue, "Wait!  Each year, innocent people are harmed by people using guns!"  I would reply that each year, innocent people are harmed by people using cars -- and cars are NOT necessary to preserve all of our freedoms, including the freedom to drive cars.  Most dangerous things are NOT necessary to preserve our freedom.  Guns ARE necessary to preserve our freedom, should the worst case arise.

Personally, I am willing to accept the possibility of stupid, needless, tragic deaths, in order that our civilized, free society might survive.

Ultimately, this is the debate, and the problem for which I see no solution.  Some of us believe that firearms are a crucial safety device, perhaps the very foundations of our rights, liberties, and our way of life -- whereas others simply scoff at this view, arguing that "assault rifles" and "high-capacity magazines" are "used only to kill people, and are therefore unnecessary in modern, civilized, society."  Scoffing at and dismissing the views of those who disagree with you is never a fruitful way to begin a discussion, yet it is the normal, typical way for President Obama to do business.  President Obama wants us to "stand up to the gun lobby".  President Obama refuses to acknowledge that millions of Americans -- Americans who have nothing to do with the National Rifle Association, and who have no financial interest in firearms -- are simply concerned with upholding the Constitution of the United States of America, a Constitution that has nothing to do with "hunting", and everything to do with protecting individual liberty and the rights of the minority.

Perhaps the time has come that we can no longer afford to be concerned with individual liberty, when we must let the government assume control over our choices and our lives, in the interest of saving "even one life".  If that is what President Obama believes, then he should SAY what he believes -- that is, that he wishes to do away with the Second Amendment and assume additional power.  Then, and only then, can we at least begin an honest discussion.

Truth is complicated.

2012 Election Wrap-up

A friend of mine sought legal action to end her marriage.  As I recall, she had been married for a year or two, after a whirlwind courtship.  The way my friend explained it to me, the judge eventually annulled her marriage, rather than granting a divorce.  The judge's reasoning was that since the groom had badly misrepresented himself to my friend, she had never actually married HIM -- she had married some non-existent fictional character created by him, and therefore had never been married at all.

In a way, this illustrates my problem with the 2012 American Presidential Election, except that the non-existent, fictional character was created by President Obama and his campaign, and substituted for the real-life Mitt Romney.  The voters who voted for President Obama were not choosing between the real Barack Obama and the real Mitt Romney -- they were choosing between Barack Obama and a character that Obama and his campaign had created.  I believe that IF the voters had been presented with the choice of the REAL Barack Obama versus the REAL Mitt Romney, Romney would have easily won the election.

In support of my position, I offer up any of the three Presidential debates.  During each debate, President Obama spent considerable time stating not HIS beliefs and plans, but the beliefs and plans of Mitt Romney.  When Mitt Romney would attempt to intervene, and state his REAL beliefs and plans, President Obama would ignore him, and re-state what he had already said, arguing that only HE was capable of accurately stating the beliefs and plans of ... Mitt Romney.  Incidentally, this tactic alone was enough to ensure that I would not vote for Barack Obama -- or anyone else who used this tactic.  But, according to exit polls, many voters accepted Barack Obama's description of Mitt Romney, rather than Mitt Romney's.

Anyone who has followed my logic this far, and not quit reading in disgust, may respond that it was the real Mitt Romney's job to overcome Barack Obama's misrepresentation of him.  This can be close to impossible, especially when most of the news media is participating in the deception.

Most of my family and friends supported and voted for President Obama, in both the 2012 and 2008 elections.  I repeatedly observed a phenomenon that I have never seen before in politics.  In both campaigns, when anyone expressed criticism of Barack Obama, or support for his opponent, the Obama supporters often responded with words to the effect of "I don't want to hear that!" or "I will not talk about that!"  They did not defend their candidate or his positions -- they simply refused to engage in discussion, or listen to opposing views.  This is a new and puzzling phenomenon, and it does not bode well for the future of political discourse in America.  This was something that I observed personally -- perhaps it is not widespread.

My personal opinion of Barack Obama has always been based solely on Barack Obama.  When he makes a speech, I listen -- to the entire speech -- and when he takes action, I pay attention.  As the 2012 election approached, I noticed that when the people I was in contact with expressed criticism of Mitt Romney, it was almost never based on anything REAL -- not on his real past, or his real positions, or his real plans for America -- but instead on the lies spread by President Obama and his campaign.

I am not saying the recent election was illegal.  Even if elections could be annulled, President Obama and his campaign would continue to run against their fictional creation, and they would likely win again.  THAT's one of the biggest tragedies: now that the tactic has been successful, it will probably be used over and over in American politics.

Less than twelve years ago, George W. Bush became our forty-third President after an election that was too close to accurately count, and was, in the end, settled by the Supreme Courts of both Florida and the United States.  Prior to the election, George W. Bush had proven himself capable of working successfully in a bipartisan manner with his opponents as he served as Governor of Texas.  For his entire term as President, his opponents fought him tooth and nail, and then criticized him for his failure to win THEIR support.  People maintained his election was "illegal".  To this day, there are bumper stickers in my community referring to George W. Bush that proclaim "Not MY President!"  And to this day, President Obama and his supporters blame George W. Bush for their current problems.

One of the most exasperating things about politics is double standards.  For over twelve years, Democrats have fought, demonized, and ridiculed George W. Bush, and continue to do so.  When Barack Obama was elected President, Democrats indignantly insisted that the nation must suddenly "unite" and "respect the Office of the President".  Furthermore, they insisted, and continue to insist, that anyone NOT uniting behind President Obama is motivated primarily by racism.  In fact, for the last four years I have TRIED to unite behind President Obama, but in every single speech, at every opportunity, he attacks and mocks me and my beliefs (well, not me PERSONALLY -- he has shown no evidence of caring about me personally, or my opinions).  For four years, he has been unable to rise out of campaign mode, and shift into a mode of leadership.

It's a tricky and dangerous thing to accuse a politician of "divisiveness".  Often, the charge is leveled by those who have spent years opposing the politician, and attempting to persuade others to join in their opposition.  In the case of President Obama, he himself has led the opposition, by continuing to battle against the very people he is supposed to represent and lead.

In a perfect world -- the world of my dreams -- after an election, the opposing sides come together, agree that the voters have made their choice, and get down to the business of doing what is best for all.  President Obama and his supporters -- NOT Mitt Romney, and NOT those who opposed President Obama -- have made this difficult.  It remains to be seen whether they have made it impossible.

Truth is complicated.

P.S.  I was looking forward to writing about something OTHER than politics.  Maybe next time.

Romney for President

Each of us has strengths and weaknesses -- areas in which we are skilled, strong, or knowledgeable, and areas in which we are not so skilled, strong, or knowledgeable.  If you want a job done well, the key is not to find the best person, but to find the best person for the job.  Even more, the best person for that PARTICULAR job under those PARTICULAR circumstances at that particular time.

I suspect that historians will look kindly upon the Obama Presidency, if for no other reason than that he was the first black President.  Objectively, I believe his Presidency should be viewed as one of the worst in the history of the United States -- not because he is intrinsically a bad person, or a bad President, but because he was uniquely ill-suited for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.

People will differ on their views of the biggest challenges facing the American President at any precise time, but President Obama has failed on most of them.  Again, not because he is necessarily a bad person, or a bad President, but simply because he was ill-equipped to face those particular challenges.

America, at this time, needed a President who could deal with rising debt and out-of-control spending.  President Obama responded by increasing spending and dramatically increasing the debt.

Most of all, at this time America needed a President who could bring together the deeply polarized and divided populace.  This is contrary to President Obama's personal style.  The number one weapon in his arsenal is to divide, vilify, and blame.  He seems to lack the ability to make a speech without using it as an opportunity to attack those who disagree with him.  Rather than attempting to build consensus and to understand those who oppose him, he attacks them and misrepresents their positions.  He is considered by many -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- to have been the most divisive, polarizing President in American history.  This is not necessarily a bad thing -- but it was precisely the opposite of what was needed NOW.

Four years ago, as a candidate, Barack Obama seemed to understand what was needed, promising a new era of bipartisanship and transparency, and even vowing that all legislation would be published on the internet three days before it was passed.  Instead, we have Obamacare, passed so quickly that not a single person even a chance to read through the entire bill before voting on it.  Obamacare, President Obama's flagship "accomplishment", passed at a time when the country was desperate for more jobs, is perhaps the largest piece of job-killing legislation ever passed in America.  This is not to say Obamacare is without merit -- it may slightly improve the health insurance system -- but it was the wrong legislation for this particular moment in history.  Perhaps ten years ago, or ten years from now, it would have been the right thing to do.  It was the wrong thing to do NOW.

If President Obama is re-elected, I will view it as the triumph of misrepresentation over honesty, of divisiveness over unity, of brute force over consensus, and of anger over hope.  Some might claim that is precisely what is needed at this time -- crush the opposition, using whatever means necessary -- but I believe they are wrong.

In many Presidential elections, the voters find themselves displeased with all of the candidates, and ultimately choosing the lesser of evils.  It has been many election cycles since I voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the poorer candidates.  Finally, in Mitt Romney, I believe I have found a candidate I can vote FOR.  Mitt Romney may not be the best person ever to run for President, and he may not objectively be a better person than Barack Obama, but he is the best person for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.

America needs a uniter rather than a divider, a job-builder rather than a job-killer, and someone who will cut spending and debt rather than expand it.  Mitt Romney is skilled, strong, and knowledgeable in exactly those areas that America needs at this moment in time.

No one can predict the future.  Perhaps the challenges facing America at this time will be too much even for Mitt Romney.  I know they have been too much for Barack Obama.

Postscript:  This will be my last blog entry posted prior to the 2012 Presidential election.  I have not yet found the words to write about the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012.  IF President Obama is re-elected, I believe he will either be impeached or forced to resign over his role in the response to the Benghazi attacks.  If President Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden would become President.  I cannot predict the future, and I cannot say whether Joe Biden would be equal to the challenges facing the American President.

Truth is complicated.

Big Tent

There is a surprising truth in American politics today -- a truth that few talk about, and that those on both the left and the right wish to deny.  The truth is that, over the last few decades, the Republican Party has quietly become the "big tent" party, the party of diversity of viewpoints -- especially when it comes to "social issues".

This truth is denied by both sides.  Those on the far right of the Republican Party want the world to believe that the rest of the party agrees with them, and find comfort in telling themselves that they speak for the majority of Republicans.  Those on the left want the world to believe that the Republican Party is made up of extremists, while the Democrat Party is more moderate and reasonable.

I am referring mostly to divisive controversial issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gun control, though the diversity extends to things like war and environmental issues.  The extremists would have you believe that all Republicans oppose abortion and same-sex marriage and gun control, favor war as opposed to peace, and give no regard to protecting the environment.  Though it is hard to gather honest, accurate statistics about the personal beliefs of millions of Americans, there are large numbers of Republicans on both sides of all of these issues -- while it is much harder to find large groups of Democrats on both sides of these issues.

I hasten to acknowledge that it is currently difficult for a vehemently pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage, pro gun control candidate to win the Republican nomination for President.  This simply reflects the fact that the extremists exercise inordinate control over both major parties, and probably over all political parties.  One of the weaknesses of the American system of government is that a well-organized and/or well-funded minority can easily wield disproportionate power.

To those who would disagree with me, I offer this true example:  A few months ago, I attended my "neighborhood caucus".  Theoretically, all power within the political party proceeds upward from the caucus level.  Among the tasks of the caucus was to elect delegates to the county convention, and also name members of the local "central committee".  In both cases, we were unable to fill the available slots.  That is, we were supposed to hold an election to narrow down our slate of delegates to eleven, but only nine would agree to serve.  We were supposed to elect six people to serve on the "central committee", but only five would agree to serve.  This means that any extremists who wished to have THEIR views heard could proceed unopposed to the county convention and central committee -- and technically represent the hundreds or thousands of eligible voters in my "neighborhood".  That is truly how the system works.  At the most basic, local level, power comes not from "the majority" but from those who desire power.  At the present time, most of the members of my local "Republican Central Committee" are probably anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, and anti-gun control.  This offers NO indication of the beliefs of local Republicans on these issues, despite the fact that extremists on both sides would like to believe that it does.

To a certain extent, this same process may extend to the Democrat Party, which is probably also dominated by those who agree to serve.  However, there are specific, organized Republican groups on both sides of these issues.  That is, there are specific organizations of Republicans who are pro-choice, and Republicans who are pro-same-sex marriage (though offhand I am unaware of any large Republican "pro-gun control" group).  I do not believe there are large, organized "Democrats against abortion" or "Democrats against same-sex-marriage" groups.  The Democrat Party has simply become less diverse than the Republican Party, and less tolerant of diversity.

As I stated at the outset, this truth is denied by both sides.  I consider this deeply dishonest, and deeply troubling.

Truth is complicated.

Obama and Race

As I type this in 2012, ANY discussion of "race" is dangerous -- especially for someone "white" like me -- and ESPECIALLY any discussion linking the subject of "race" with President Obama.  However, it seems likely that ANY discussion of President Obama, now or in the future, will include the subject of "race".  President Obama will always be viewed as "America's first black President", and will always be mentioned that way in the history books, no matter what else transpires during his Presidency.

The title of "America's first black President" was destined to be complicated and troubling, regardless of who held it.  On the one hand, I had always thought that part of the entire IDEA of having a black President would be to prove that their race did not matter -- but then of course it DOES matter if you are excited about them being "the first black President".

A week or two after President Obama was elected, I heard a discussion on National Public Radio that illustrates the problem.  Several people, including pollsters from both the Obama and McCain campaigns, were discussing the election results, and especially focusing on the information gained from "exit polls".  They were also taking phone calls from listeners.  One of the callers brought up the issue of people who voted based primarily on race.  The pollsters agreed that some voters had based their votes primarily on this issue.  Then the pollster for the Obama campaign made an interesting statement.  He said that everyone feared that people would vote AGAINST Barack Obama due to his race -- and some people DID vote against Barack Obama due to his race -- but their data indicated that even MORE people had voted FOR Barack Obama due to his race, and in fact, he would not have won the election WITHOUT the people who voted for him mostly BECAUSE of his race.  So, while they had feared that his race might prevent him from being elected, in fact it had CAUSED him to be elected.  His final comment was the most curious of all, as he stated, "And isn't that a wonderful thing!"

As I listened to the discussion on the radio, I was struck that it was NOT necessarily a wonderful thing for someone to be elected BECAUSE of their race.  Clearly, most people would have felt that if John McCain had been elected BECAUSE of his (white) race, it would have been a BAD thing.  I continue to be troubled by the roll that race played in the election.  By the way, I am simply repeating what I heard on National Public Radio.  I personally do not have the expertise or data to say what roll race played in Obama's election.  Still, I question whether it is truly any better to SUPPORT someone because of their race than it is to OPPOSE them because of their race.

I must confess that from the moment Barack Obama became a candidate for President, I was troubled by the idea that anyone who opposed him, or disagreed with him on ANY issue, risked being branded a "racist".  This has turned out to be even more true than I had feared.  Even today, almost four years into his Presidency, there are those who insist that the ONLY reason anyone EVER opposes President Obama is due to his race.  I suppose this was predictable, but it is still troubling, and it tends to interfere with honest debate over the true issues.  Years ago, I heard someone on television -- and I wish I could recall who it was -- who stated, "I disagree with President Obama on almost every issue, and am troubled by all of his positions EXCEPT his race.  I do not care about his race one way of the other."  I believe many people fall into this camp, yet all are routinely labeled "racist".

For me, labeling all of those who oppose President Obama as "racist" shows disrespect not only for them, but also for President Obama.  It is as if he has no ideas, and no positions, and has done nothing as President -- all that matters is his race.  If, as I believe, he HAS ideas and positions, and has taken actions as President, then clearly there are going to be people who disagree, just as there are people who agree with him.  It sells him short to label all opposition "racist".

I cannot completely ignore the fact that in many ways America NEEDED to have a black President, and the fact that we HAVE a black President is, in many ways, a good thing.  At the same time, I consider Barack Obama to have been a bad President, and bad for the country, and bad for the entire world -- but NOT because he is black ... in my opinion, his "blackness" is perhaps the only good thing about his Presidency.  (But of course, since I believe Barack Obama has been a bad President, many will simply label me a racist, and ignore my opinions beyond that.)

Barack Obama had a unique opportunity to unite America, and serve as President for ALL Americans.  He has squandered that opportunity, choosing* to be one of the most partisan Presidents -- ignoring, demonizing, or ridiculing all with differing ideas, rather than attempting to build consensus, and tossing aside his 2008 campaign promises of a transparent administration ("the most transparent administration in history!"). One of Barack Obama's biggest failings as a President has been his failure to ever rise out of "campaign mode", and represent not only those who voted for him, but the entire country.  Instead, he can never resist an opportunity to praise his supporters, and attack his opponents.  As America's first black President, this is especially tragic.

Truth is complicated.

*Despite what President Obama or his supporters might claim, dominating rather than uniting IS a choice, and cannot be blamed solely on one's opponents.

Magic tricks

Decades ago, while far from home, I found myself seated next to a magician -- a talkative magician.  Like most modern-day magicians, he did not claim any actual magical powers.  He was an entertainer, a performer who made a living by doing things that APPEARED to be magic -- that appeared to defy a logical explanation.  Things like making an object appear to be broken, and then whole again, or making objects seem to vanish and reappear.  (As I recall, this particular magician liked to work with doves, making them vanish and then re-materialize.)

While my new friend was reluctant to give away the particular secrets behind HIS tricks, he enthusiastically gave away the secrets behind OTHER magician's tricks.  As a general rule, he explained that magic was heavily dependent on distraction and misdirection.  The observer must be made to focus on something other than what was important, at least momentarily.  If the magician needed to do something important with his left hand, he needed to direct the observer's attention to his right hand.  If something crucial was about to happen in the center of the stage, the observer needed to be paying attention to the sides of the stage.  The magician explained that, if done well, this was almost impossible for the observer to overcome.  When he himself was watching another magician, and KNEW precisely where the important thing was about to happen, his attention was STILL successfully diverted from that spot, at least for the crucial moment it took for the other magician to appear to do something "magical".

This seems to be precisely the method that President Obama's campaign is using in an attempt to win his re-election:  Keep the observers' attention focussed on unimportant areas, at least at crucial moments.  Rather than honestly discussing the differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney, or discussing President Obama's accomplishments and future goals, the Obama campaign has successfully directed attention to things like Mitt Romney's wealth, or his tax returns, or at one point to some unfortunate absurd comments made by a Senatorial candidate -- comments having nothing to do with the Presidential contest.

One of the problems with analyzing a modern Presidential campaign is that so many people are involved.  There is no way for an outsider to know what campaign decisions are being made by the candidate, and what decisions are being made by professional campaigners.  From my position, I have no idea what Mitt Romney himself wants to do, or what Barack Obama wants to do, with regard to their respective campaigns.  I can only observe what is actually being done.  SOMEONE has apparently decided that the best way for President Obama to win re-election is to avoid honest discussion of his record, his accomplishments, his future goals, and his differences with Mitt Romney.  SOMEONE has decided on a strategy of distraction and misdirection.  And, as my magician friend explained, since they are doing it well, it is almost impossible to overcome.  Even those wishing to honestly examine the differences between the two candidates find themselves focusing on irrelevancies, like Mitt Romney's tax returns, or the comments of a previously-unknown Senatorial candidate.

Even if I knew nothing about the two candidates, and had no opinions about their positions or qualifications, this strategy would make me suspicious, and would make me tend to favor Mitt Romney.  Apparently, the Obama campaign believes that if the voters honestly compare Mitt Romney to Barack Obama, President Obama will be found lacking.

Please note that I am not stating whether I believe President Obama SHOULD be re-elected, or which candidate would make a better American President for the next four years.  I am simply observing the direction of President Obama's campaign, which, incidentally, is a direction that I do not like.  I would prefer a legitimate, open discussion of the differences between the candidates.

The last few weeks have introduced two new elements to the Presidential campaign -- a series of debates, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2012.  With regard to the terrorist attacks, the Obama campaign has once again attempted to engage in distraction and misdirection, at some points seeming to blame the attacks themselves on Mitt Romney, and certainly attempting to turn the focus to Romney's response to the attacks, rather than the attacks, or the administration's response to the attacks.  With regard to the debates, slight-of-hand is proving to be somewhat more difficult -- though both sides have displayed a tendency to engage in "spin" rather than absolute truth.

Truth is complicated.

Agreeing with Obama

The subject of "honesty" gets a bit complicated.  Living among others in polite society, sometimes total honesty is simply rude.

 

Amazingly, there is even debate about what constitutes "honesty".  In my mind, stating an opinion as an established fact is a LIE, even if it turns out that the opinion is correct.  The precise wording is crucial in these situations.

 

For me, honesty is one of the most important qualities in a leader or elected official.  It does not matter so much to me whether I AGREE with someone's ideas, as long as they are fundamentally honest.

 

I disagree with President Obama on many issues, but there is one thing he does, over and over and over, that especially irritates and aggravates me.  In his speeches, he regularly makes statements that begin with phrases such as "I think we can all agree that ..." or "Experts are in agreement that ..."

 

When I hear President Obama say, "I think we call all agree ...", I can be fairly certain that he is about to say something with which I strongly disagree, and with which I am certain many others -- sometimes a majority of Americans -- also strongly disagree.  I would not mind if he said, "I believe that ...", but he seems to feel it necessary to erroneously claim that there is widespread AGREEMENT on what he is about to say.

 

To me, this constitutes a blatant LIE, regardless of which side of the issue you are on, or which side is "correct".  Ironically, he rarely uses these phrases UNLESS he is about to say something controversial.  He does not say, "I think we can all agree that water is wet," or "Experts are in agreement that two plus two equals four."  Instead, he says, "I think we can all agree that income redistribution is a noble goal, " or "Experts are in agreement that my approach is good for the American economy."

 

I do not know what to make of this.  There are at least two separate aspects to consider.  First, I am fairly certain that President Obama uses these statements more often than any other recent President -- more often than either President Bush, or President Clinton, or President Reagan, or President Carter.  Secondly, I believe he generally uses them to precede ideas that LACK widespread agreement, whereas some people might make such statements with regards to subjects where there truly IS widespread agreement.

 

I may be wrong on either or both of these points.  Perhaps this is all just my perception.  However, if I am correct, and President Obama habitually uses such statements to introduce ideas about which we do NOT agree, then he ends up alienating me at precisely those moments when he is attempting to persuade me.  Then again, perhaps this is just me.  Perhaps the technique is an effective way to persuade other people.

 

Some might say this is just a question of personal style, rather than substance.  Sometimes we just do not like another person's "style".  I disagree.  In this case, President Obama insists on, and persists in, LYING.  For me, dishonesty IS a matter of substance rather than style -- though his routine use of these terms also constitutes an issue of style, and I do not like this style.

 

Truth is complicated.

A Campaign Story

In college, I devoted considerable time and energy working for the election of a candidate for the United States House of Representatives.  I met this candidate during his first campaign -- which he lost -- and continued to work for him during his second campaign -- which he won -- and also during many of his later campaigns.  During those first campaigns, I became very well-versed in his background and positions, and I supported him totally.

My tasks included visiting undecided voters.  In the idealistic world of college politics, students would actually fill out cards requesting additional information on our candidate.  If you filled out a card, you got a visit from ME.

As one student invited me into his dorm room, he explained that he was from a distant city, and knew nothing about our local candidates ... but he intended to vote in our local election, so he wanted to educate himself.  He and I proceeded to have a long, pleasant discussion.  As he explained his views, and I explained the views of my candidate, I realized that the student had much more in common with the opposing candidate -- and I told him so.  Eventually, I simply advised him that he would be better-served by voting for the opponent.

The student was incredulous.  "Wait a minute!  You are working for this guy, but you are telling me to vote for his OPPONENT?"

I repeated the idea that, given the similarity between the student's positions and the positions of the opponent, he personally would be better-represented by the opponent.

He continued to voice his amazement.  Ultimately, he said something to the effect of, "If your guy has people working for him who are SO honest that they would tell someone to vote for his OPPONENT ... then I am going to vote for your guy.  You cannot stop me from voting for him."

I told the candidate this story decades later, after he had been in office for a long time, and he seemed pleased.  At the time of my college encounter, it did not seem notable.  Recently, when I tell people of the incident, they seem to find it unique.  Some even say I was wrong, and that I should have encouraged the student to vote for my candidate, no matter what his beliefs.

This incident SHOULD not be unique.  At most, I perhaps should have attempted to persuade the student that his views were wrong, and that my views, and the views of my candidate, were correct.  But, in my mind, I truly was there strictly to provide information to the student -- NOT to debate him, or to gain his vote.  I had so much confidence in the appeal of my candidate that I believed the only thing necessary for him to win the election was for the voters to have honest information about both candidates.

In the real world -- unlike the idealized political world of a college dorm -- most political campaigns are about winning and losing elections, rather than about trying to accurately reflect the will of the voters.  That is, people and candidates do not so much care whether the voters share their views -- they simply want them to vote the way they want them to vote.  And if misrepresenting the views of the candidate -- or especially the views of the opponent -- helps to gain votes, then misrepresentation is acceptable strategy.

The politicians and political campaigns of today, at least in America, totally embrace distortions and oversimplifications and "spin" and outright misrepresentations of both their own positions and the positions of their dreaded opposition.  If someone is so bold as to point this out, the response is merely, "That's just how the game is played.  Both sides do it."

I would love to do a poll.  I would ask people, "If you had it in your power to change the outcome of an election, so the result reflected YOUR will rather than the will of the majority of the voters -- and no one would ever find out -- would you DO it?"  I suppose you could even ask some sub-questions, such as making the election an exceptionally close one.  The trick, as with all polls, would be in getting people to respond honestly.  In a perfect world, I suspect most people would wish that the majority of voters would truly agree with them.  In the real world, I suspect many people would be perfectly happy subverting the outcome of an election.  Assuming you could somehow force people to respond honestly, the most interesting thing, for me, would be to delve into the differences between those who were willing to subvert the will of the voters, and those who insisted on abiding by the will of the majority.  My guess is that many people would choose NOT to alter the outcome of an election, and that most of those people would be from the same party -- but that's a TOTAL guess, and just my unsubstantiated opinion.

I sometimes try to imagine a political system based on total honesty and clarity, where all sides did their best to fully illuminate and clarify both their own positions and plans and the positions and plans of their opponents, and any sort of distortion, oversimplification, "spin", or misrepresentation was viewed as the ultimate sin.  There are a number of reasons why this is unlikely to happen.  For one thing, as people vilify their opponents, they come to truly BELIEVE many of the things that are said, no matter how far they depart from the truth.

There is another quieter, darker reason why people are reluctant to embrace political honesty.  Many Americans -- perhaps most -- harbor deep-seated doubts about the will of the "majority".  That is, each of us tends to believe that WE know what is "best".  The majority opinion is fine, as long as it matches OUR opinion.  In order to achieve this, the majority opinion must be guided and molded by whatever means necessary.  Though I am making this sound somewhat sinister, it is totally understandable and perhaps even defensible.  IF we know what is best for the country and the world, then we should do our best to make it happen, regardless of the will of the majority.  The problem is, no one truly KNOWS what is best.

Truth is complicated.

Enemies' Opinions

I am far from perfect -- some might say "deeply flawed".  I like to think that I have some friends;  I know that I have at least a few enemies -- if for no other reason than that I have a tendency to stand up to bullies, and bullies do not appreciate being stood up to.  To the best of my knowledge, none of my enemies really know me very well; I am a fairly private person.

If you were trying to come up with an accurate and thorough description of me, including my core beliefs and philosophies, you could go about it in various ways.  You could talk with me, or you could read things that I had written, including this blog.  To the best of my knowledge, there are few, if any, audio or video recordings of me that you could observe.  It's possible that others may have written things about me.  You could talk with people who knew me, and people who had heard things about me.  You could talk with my family, my friends, and my enemies.

IF your goal was accuracy, I suppose your best hope would be to use ALL of these sources, if you could gain access to them.  If your sources were limited, and you were especially interested in my core beliefs and philosophies, this blog would probably be one of your best sources, along with talking with me, and with the people who know me best -- but this might result in an unfairly positive view of me.  One of the least accurate sources of information would be the people who have never met me, or read anything that I have written, but have heard about me.  But even that would probably be more accurate than if you spoke only with my enemies, who would likely misrepresent most of my beliefs and philosophies.

Yet, in American politics, this is precisely where many people get their information about candidates -- from the candidate's worst enemies, or from people who have heard about a candidate from the candidate's worst enemies.  And this is true not just of candidates, but of entire political parties.  Many Democrats' entire opinion of the Republican Party is based NOT on what any actual Republicans believe, but strictly on what enemies of the Republican Party have said -- and the same is true for how many Republicans get their opinions about the Democratic Party.  Both sides tend to believe NOT what the candidates say, or what the parties say, but what ENEMIES of the candidates and the parties say.

Last night I watched a television show that featured two Democrats sitting across from each other, discussing the beliefs and positions of the Republican Party.  I was not taking notes, but, offhand, they did not make a single true statement about either the official positions of the Republican Party, or the beliefs and positions of a particular Republican candidate -- though, to be fair, since individual candidates and individual Republicans have a wide range of beliefs (as do individual Democrats), I suspect SOME of what they said DID apply to certain Republicans.  I do not know where the two Democrats got their information.  Perhaps they were deliberately misrepresenting Republican beliefs, or perhaps they were repeating things they had learned from enemies of the Republican Party.  Either way, their statements were blatantly false, and could be easily confirmed to be blatantly false.

This is not a new phenomenon.  For hundreds of years, or perhaps much longer, people have been basing their opinions of people, and of large groups of people, on questionable statements made by the peoples' enemies.  In this enlightened, open-minded, tolerant era, though, most would like to believe we have risen above automatically accepting the opinions spread by enemies.  Somehow, in politics, we still embrace the idea that the opinions of someone's enemies are a good source of accurate information about them.

In this "information age", it's easy to find more accurate, honest information about individuals, candidates, and groups of people.  Politicians make speeches and hold town meetings and even write books.  If someone has already held political office, you can examine their record -- see how they voted on various issues, and what they actually DID or tried to do.  And, if you want to know the beliefs of Republicans or Democrats, you can simply TALK to some Republicans and Democrats -- but you should not expect accurate information about REPUBLICAN beliefs from DEMOCRATS, and you should not expect accurate information about DEMOCRATIC beliefs from REPUBLICANS.

As I admitted at the outset, I am far from perfect, but I DO tend to base my opinion of people on the people themselves, rather than on what their enemies say about them, and I try to actually TALK with people from groups I do not know, or with whom I disagree.

Truth is complicated.

Fox News Channel

I do not know how to begin writing about Fox News Channel.

There is a wonderful television situation comedy called “Corner Gas” that takes place in the fictional Canadian town of Dog River.  Everyone in Dog River hates the neighboring town, Wullerton (sometimes spelled Woolerton or Wollerton), so much that anytime anyone mentions Wullerton, they all spit in disgust.  The local newspaper prints “SPIT!” after it prints the name “Wullerton”.  THAT’S how many people feel about Fox News Channel.  The name itself is the punchline to an un-stated joke, though many people insist on modifying the name to things like “Faux News Channel”.  I am often amazed at the level of animosity expressed toward Fox News Channel.  People have such strong feelings about Fox News Channel that it is often difficult to have a calm, rational discussion about it.

Fox News Channel is criticized for being hopelessly biased, specifically favoring “the right” or “conservative” or “Republican” ideas and candidates, and especially scorned for its “Fair and Balanced” slogan in the face of this bias.

I am not an expert on broadcast news.  My personal view is that Fox News Channel is indeed horribly biased … but no worse than ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, or the BBC, and probably not as badly biased as  MSNBC.  All these other networks, however, are biased in the opposite direction, favoring “the left” or “liberal” or “Democrat” ideas and candidates.  As far as the claim of being “Fair and Balanced” goes, Fox News Channel generally does a better job of acknowledging opposing views than any of the other networks do, which I would say gives it the claim of being the MOST “fair and balanced”, even if it is not TOTALLY fair and balanced.  The other networks often fail to acknowledge that opposing views even EXIST, and completely fail to report or even mention many news stories.

To repeat, I am NOT claiming that Fox News Channel is unbiased, and I am not claiming that it is “Fair and Balanced”.  I AM claiming that it is no more biased than any other major news network, and probably more “Fair and Balanced”.  If, for some reason, a person only had access to one source of news, I believe that person would have the best chance of gleaning the complicated TRUTH from watching Fox News Channel.  Although Fox News Channel is biased, and may come down on the wrong side of any given issue, they often give you a more complete picture of the news than other major networks, so you can figure it out for yourself.

Given my belief that ALL major news outlets are horribly biased, I find the level of negativity directed at Fox News Channel to be puzzling, troubling, and humorous, all at the same time.  My great fear is that some people truly fail to realize that their favorite news outlet is biased.  One of the most chilling statements I have ever seen on television was ABC journalist Sam Donaldson claiming, with a straight face, that journalists have no power, as they merely report the news.

The truth is far more complicated.  Simply by a glance, or a subtle change in inflection, a journalist can change the way millions of people feel about a subject.  I saw a BBC report during the war in Iraq.  An Iraqi spokesman was claiming the American army had been kept far away, while the journalist stated, “The Americans SAY they have taken the airport,” -- emphasizing the word “say” in a manner that indicated she herself was far from convinced.  The easily-verifiable fact was that the Americans HAD taken the airport, but somehow the journalist presented the entire issue as a matter of conflicting opinions.

One of the most biased things a journalist or news outlet does is deciding -- without consulting you or me -- WHAT topics are to be considered “news”.  These decisions involve making choices that are far from obvious.  Personally, I often disagree with these choices.  There are stories that are extensively covered as “news” that I consider largely insignificant, while some stories that I consider highly important are never mentioned even on the local news, let alone national or world-wide.  Again, the criteria used to decide WHAT constitutes “news” is NOT obvious.  Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be promoting a specific agenda.  Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be attempting to gain or retain viewers, listeners, or readers.  Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be mostly just competing with other “news” organizations.

As is so often the case, a big part of the problem, for both journalists and non-journalists, is that we are unaware of how strongly we are influenced by our own biases and values.  For example, if one hundred journalists were asked to decide which of two stories was more newsworthy, and should be featured prominently in a news broadcast, fifty journalists might choose one of the stories, while fifty chose the other story, and all one hundred might believe that the “correct” choice was obvious.

It is understandable that the fifty who chose the first story are likely to be employed by a news organization that shares their views, just as the fifty that chose the second story are likely to be employed by a news organization that shares THEIR views.  Perhaps they held these views before they became associated with that particular news organization, or perhaps these views were formed as a product of their association with that organization, or perhaps both factors come into play.  Whatever the mechanism, the result is that journalists from both organizations feel that their views are obviously right, while those of the other organization are obviously wrong.

The same is true of consumers of news.  If I tend to believe Fox News gives accurate information about stories that I believe are significant, then I am likely to become a regular viewer.  If I believe MSNBC gives more accurate information about stories that I believe are more significant, then I will probably watch and defend MSNBC.  The frightening, unfortunate thing is that each of us tends to believe we ourselves are clearly “right” about which news source is “biased” and which is “objective”.

It would be interesting -- but probably impossible at this time -- to attempt to run a truly unbiased “news” organization.  One of the obvious problems with such an endeavor is that some people believe that in order to be unbiased, all ideas -- good and bad, right and wrong -- must be treated equally.  THAT’s not “unbiased” -- it’s stupid.  An unbiased news organization should attempt to find the TRUTH among the conflicting ideas.

Every now and then there are clear cases demonstrating the possibility that Fox News Channel is the LEAST biased of any major American news outlet.  Ironically, perhaps, one of these cases was over four years ago, when Hillary Clinton was battling Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.  Nonpartisan sources found Fox News Channel to be the most objective source portraying the contest between the two Democrats.

Then there is the coverage of events in the Middle East since September 11, 2012 (NOT September 11, 2001).  While intelligence analysts and diplomats from the USA and around the world acknowledge that the attacks on US embassies and consulates were apparently pre-planned and NOT motivated by outrage over a youtube video, President Obama and his administration continue to focus their attention on the video, AND on attacking Mitt Romney’s response to the attacks -- and rather than investigate the situation and attempting to find the TRUTH, most American media outlets are simply reporting the version of “truth” portrayed by the Obama administration.  As in other cases, Fox News Channel is reporting both sides -- the administration’s claims, and the opinions of the intelligence community and international diplomats.  They are NOT being totally “balanced”; they are presenting both sides, but attempting to find the truth -- unlike other American news organizations.  I am not claiming that Fox News Channel is necessarily CORRECT, but they ARE giving both sides of the story.

It is often said that there are at least two sides to every story.  That may be true, but it does not mean that all sides are equally plausible, and worthy of the same respect.  A “fair and balanced” approach demands only that all sides be examined for merit.  It does NOT mean that all sides must be found to be WORTHY of merit, or presented as worthy of merit.

Truth is complicated -- and Fox News Channel, while biased, often does a better job of acknowledging that fact than other American news outlets.

Sharpton's Blame

About a month ago I was flipping channels on the television -- actually, a friend was flipping the channels, and I was simply watching.  She stopped on a person I recognized as Al Sharpton.  I'm not sure what channel it was, but he seemed to be making a speech, delivering some sort of political commentary.  It appeared he may have his own program, or at least his own segment on a program.

He was talking about what bad shape the USA is in, and how Americans are suffering, and he seemed to be about to blame someone.  This surprised me.  Generally, when Americans want to blame someone for their situation, they blame their most powerful political leaders, and especially -- rightly or wrongly -- the President of the United States.  I don't know that much about Al Sharpton, but I did not think he would be wanting to blame the Democratic leaders of Congress, and I especially did not think he would be wanting to blame President Obama ... yet he definitely seemed to be working up to blaming someone.

Suddenly, the suspense was over.  He blamed Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  He showed Mitt Romney on vacation, riding on a jet ski, and he talked about how Mitt Romney was remodeling and enlarging his summer home, and he showed a sports car rising on an elevator (the implication was that it was Mitt Romney's sports car rising on Mitt Romney's car elevator, but that may have been just an implication).  As Al Sharpton showed these various video clips, he made statements about how Mitt Romney is out of touch, and cannot understand the suffering of many (or most) Americans.

I am still a bit astounded as I write this.  I cannot quite figure out how Mitt Romney riding on a jet ski is responsible for making Americans suffer.  Perhaps if he was President, and riding on a jet ski while he had Presidential duties to perform ... but he is not President, and he has no political duties at this time, other than running for President.  I am not an economist, but it seems to me that one of the best ways for individual Americans to support our economy is for those who can afford to consume, to consume!  IF Mitt Romney is remodeling and enlarging buildings here in the USA, he is probably employing American workers, and using at least SOME American products ... truly and literally creating jobs.  And if he does have a car elevator, it was probably installed by American workers, and, again, made using at least SOME American products, made by American workers.  More people getting jobs and getting paid, thanks to the fact that Mitt Romney can afford to pay, and IS paying.

But the fact that I have spent the last paragraph discussing and defending Mitt Romney demonstrates that Al Sharpton has at least partially succeeded in deflecting the potential blame and attention from Barack Obama and our current Congressional leaders -- which seems to be the key element of the Obama campaign strategy at this point.  I must emphasize that I am NOT claiming that President Obama DESERVES any blame for America's present situation, and I am not even certain that Americans are indeed suffering.

I AM saying that it is preposterous for Al Sharpton to blame Mitt Romney for our present situation, especially while neglecting to blame President Obama (if he feels the need to blame SOMEONE).

I truly believe I can be fairly objective and bi-partisan about this.  For weeks and weeks, most of the political news I saw (and I have not been paying much attention) involved Democrats demanding that Mitt Romney release years and years of his tax returns.  I cannot figure out how the release of Mitt Romney's tax returns will make the world a better place, or put anyone in a better position to decide which candidate might make a better President.  Actually, since I have an unusually-strong belief in personal privacy, and Mitt Romney seems to be guarding the privacy of his own private tax returns, perhaps it indicates that he is a good candidate for someone like me, who values personal privacy.

The truth is that anytime there is an election between an incumbent and a challenger, the best, most objective source of information to guide a voter is found in the incumbent's record.  Either candidate can SAY they will or will not do things, or SAY what they believe, but the incumbent has a clear record that can be examined.  But in this Presidential election, attention is successfully being shifted away from the incumbent's record, and instead the chief focus seems to be on the fact that Mitt Romney is wealthy, and comes from a wealthy background (which is true of most American Presidential candidates, and most American Presidents).  This knowledge -- the knowledge that Mitt Romney is wealthy, and comes from a wealthy background -- is not information that I consider significant in choosing a President.  But it's most of the information that I am getting at the moment.

It may be good political strategy to shift focus away from things that are relevant to what the candidate might be expected to do if elected, and focus instead on irrelevant personal issues, but it is wrong.  It does not matter which candidate is "right", or which candidate is Democrat or Republican.  Currently, those who campaign for President Obama have successfully shifted the focus away from things that matter, and are focussing on things that do not matter, at least not to me.  Perhaps I am out of touch with Americans.

Truth is complicated.