On purpose

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

And the Epitomite goes to ...

The Epitomite

No heart, no brain

Congratulations to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Mulvaney, at the behest of his leash holder, Donald Trump, himself an Epitomite awardee, has proposed and defended a hard-hearted and self-defeating budget which claws through the soul of America and spits at the rest of the world.

Mr. Mulvaney has established a reputation of mean disinterest and callous disregard that will follow him throughout the remainder of his career and molder as his legacy. It is with the deepest disdain that this award is discredited to him.

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney
Them eyes ain't smilin'.

= ! =

Iffy shades of gray

The nouveau-powerful and their hangers-on in Washington seem to share certain personality traits that mark their openly immature style of governance, a style about which many seem to be pleased. And it's quite possible, maybe even likely, that these denominators are the result of organic brain physiology. In other words, trying to change their minds is a fool's errand.

I'll be more specific.

One common idiosyncrasy among these Republican atavists is the inability to appreciate nuance. For this crowd, issues tend to be understood as simple, straightforward, at-face-value. Bad is bad, good is good, white is white, black is black and there are no shades of gray. This point of view lends itself to a feeling of righteousness and a tendency to discount others' opinions. No matter the extra baggage or special circumstances that may be attached to any given matter, it is interpreted solely in terms of whatever feature is deemed most important to these political retrogressives. By the same token, if one of them feels somehow offended, whether there's been an offense or not, that perception becomes entrenched and it overrides or warps other considerations. Conversely, friends can do no wrong—unless doing wrong to them—and friends' shortcomings, or even wrongdoing, are lost in the glare of the favorable impression.

To a man with a hammer, every problem

looks like a nail.

Another peculiarity, that is, peculiar in its relative infrequency at this level of responsibility, is the bias toward taking every qualified circumstance personally, that is, the inability to separate one's perception of personal self-worth from the value inferred from every encountered situation; it is impossible to see self and situation as separate forms. This causes one's self-concept to be constantly assailed by life's circumstances. In a simple example, if some crackpot nobody yells out that you're crazy, then all of your attention immediately becomes focused on reacting to that charge. Or, in another example, should one perceive oneself to be a tough dealmaker, for instance, then every transaction becomes a deal, as suggested in the proverb about the man with a hammer. Even more, in every deal it is essential that one must decisively beat the opponent,without regard to other considerations. And, as a corollary, one must always be driving hard deals in order to appear valid to oneself.

Essentially, for such people, life is always a zero sum game: one does not win unless someone else loses. To them, there is no such thing as a win-win scenario; the opposition must always lose—and to be seen to lose in a big way.

Deserving of the reputation
or not, Napoleon serves as
the poster boy for low self
esteem.

Before I move to my causative premise, I'll cite just one more trait: low self-esteem, a deficit compensated within this group by high levels of braggadocio, exaggerated reactions, self-justifications or even prevarications, or by dramatically associating oneself with some notable person, organization or cause. This is not to say that a person or persons is not intelligent, capable or even above average in relevant skills and knowledge. What it describes, instead, is the inability of that individual to be comfortable and confident in those qualities. Because of that uncertainty, they are governed by the awkward nature of the compensating behaviors.

To a degree, low self esteem is part and parcel in most of the affectations I've mentioned. Even so, I do not mean to suggest that this is an exhaustive list of limiting attributes, but it does point up one further argument that I want to make, that such traits are most likely a product of physiologic components and, as such, are not susceptible to argument or logic.

     Larry, Curly and Moe                Henny Youngman

Consider this example. Between childhood and adulthood, your sense of humor changes. As a young child, if you wanted to tickle your funny bone, you were more likely attuned to visual comedy like cartoons or the Three Stooges. Whereas, having become an adult, you probably prefer stand-up comedians, a style of humor I will sum up, for purposes, in Henny Youngman's classical chestnut, "Take my wife—please!"

The difference is in the format of the humor. The Three Stooges are obvious: pratfalls and head slaps, odd vocalizations and funny faces. Youngman's humor, on the other hand, is relatively sophisticated. In fact, it requires that the listener supply a good portion of the interpretation. First, we have to know that many jokes start with the phrase, take my wife (or kids, boss, mother-in-law, etc.). Second, we have to realize that Henny's pulled a bait-and-switch on us, changing the joke from a standard humorous story to a one-liner all in the space of one word: please. What's entertaining is that we, the listeners, were fooled, not so much by what was said but by the surprise, the twist on our expectations. We have to do some mental processing to appreciate that type of humor.

The humor of the Stooges—we laugh when someone falls down—appeals to what is termed "concrete thinking," the processing of obvious, straightforward information that does not require interpretation or association with other ideas.




In contrast, most stand-up humor depends on "abstract thinking," processing information as it ties into other ideas, often requiring combining concepts to understand a new construct.

In more general terms, abstract thinking allows us to organize, analyze, evaluate, cross reference and utilize information, but it also permits us to form concepts about the nature of things rather than just to think about the things themselves. For instance, abstractly, one would be able to consider the notion of what health actually means in terms of nation building. More concretely, one might only be able to frame health in terms of the cost in dollars.

The thing is, abstract thinking appears to involve the very front of the
brain's frontal lobe. It is the last part of the brain to develop, and that growth can still be going on into a young person's mid-twenties. That area of the brain appears to figure heavily in other guidance and control functions, such as judgment, problem solving, language, impulse control and socialization, among others.

The cluster of issues I've described are readily tracked to specific areas of the brain. And it is my contention that the brains of many of the Retrograde Republicans have notable physical or chemical differences which affect the way they process information and judge their world, differences marking them apart from more mainstream politicos. In effect, they actually see a substantially different—and much more frightening—world. These are a result of physical features, literally organic differences that are not open to modification by persuasion. Attempting to do so would be the same as if you tried to cajole someone into growing taller or changing their eye color. Ain't gonna happen. I see no future in working from that angle.

Christopher Walken (1984)

Nor does it seem possible that any of them will undergo significant personality or behavior changes, at least not over an extended period. Many of these individuals, however, have long been prominent players on a national stage and I would expect most of them to be skilled at displaying behaviors, giving
speeches, holding conversations or making gestures that convey meanings that are, in effect, play acting, showing or telling people whatever is necessary to gain their trust and support. But that's a fairly common politician's skill. Some may even know how to act presidential.

What I want to emphasize, though, is that a leopard, through no fault of its own, really can't change its spots.

= ! =

Anatomy of a Mud Puddle

The 2016 presidential election was the Democrat's to lose. And they did. And now they are standing around, scratching their, uh ... heads, wondering why. And, by all indications from the Democratic National Committee, they've decided that they just need to do more of the same in the future.

That's because they're thinking like the long-term,

New Democratic National
Committee Chair Tom Perez

professional politicians that they are. So they're already preparing a detailed plan to make all the same mistakes again. If it worked in 2008, it ought to work in 2020, right?
~
Here's what happened in 2016:

1. The Democrats presented a candidate who had no charisma and, even worse, she tried to fake it. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump just oozed personality.
2. While Secretary Clinton, just like President Obama, carried all the credentials of a viable candidate, the electorate, in 2016, wasn't checking credentials.
3. There was a bit too much emphasis on Mrs. Clinton's gender as being a good reason to vote for her, introducing a note for which the opposition found an easy counterpoint and one that was discordant for many anti-gender-bias Democrats. If a male candidate was not more qualified by being male, then neither was a female for being female. You can't have it both ways and many were offended at the attempt.
4. Secretary Clinton was carrying a lot of political baggage, some of it for over twenty years. This load included, whether deserved or not, issues associated with the Whitewater controversy, Travelgate, Filegate, a cattle futures controversy, her response to the Lewinsky, Jones, et al scandals, her leadership of the Clinton presidency healthcare effort, as well as Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and the email servers. Maybe she didn't earn it, but she had an unsavory reputation, nonetheless, that made her especially vulnerable to the negative spin from any opposition.
5. Just like President Obama, the Secretary was a known fellow traveler of the the corporate financial industry, not the most popular group since the 2008 economic debacle.
6. The Democratic platform was the same old thing while the Republican
candidate's platform, though changing hourly and presenting some highly problematic planks, was exciting and newsworthy. Oh, was it newsworthy!
7. The anachronism that is the Electoral College. Once upon a time, when we were much younger, we were the United States of America. However, we became the United States of America on November 19, 1863. Get over it.

Would Senator Sanders have been a more viable candidate? Probably not. He was a bit too fiscally pie-in-the-sky for an electorate still dealing with the aftereffects of the 2008 economic meltdown. Nor would he appear viable in 2020. Besides which, at his age, and as a conscientious worker, he'd likely not survive the rigors of the presidency.

Which Dems might be viable for a 2020 run? I'll limit this list to my preferences (not that I'd wish the top job on any one of them):

Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts

 John Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado

Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator from New York

First Lady Michelle Obama

 Vice President Joe Biden

!

Why knot

Perhaps the essential question of the philosophers is, "Why am I here?" Or, writ large, "Why are we here?"

This question has many permutations, for example, What is reality? Or, What is life? What is death? And so forth, in ever more specific or esoteric forms.

But for the past few years, my response to the question, "Why am I here?," has been, Why do you ask?

It is an insidious conceit of human beings that we, either individually or as a species, are somehow important. That our self-awareness is ultimately significant. That human life, in and of itself, is paramount. That we are the preeminent whosis in all of the whatsis. Well, other than our own opinion, who says?

Who says? We have gone so far—in our delusion—as to declare that an all-powerful and perfect Divinity, the existence of which we have absolutely no incontrovertible evidence, has created us in its own likeness.
We have declared that God has declared that we are like God.
Ego much?

Let me propose some alternate questions for the philosophers among us: What works? How can we all get along together? How can we improve the quality of life for all of us? But perhaps the ultimate question is, When?

!