Astigmatism

I'm troubled by the Trump presidency, but I accept the results. Perhaps I'm not as nervous as you, but I'm troubled. And there are many who tell me how to think about him.

What moved him was simply a craving for facile and meaningless banzais, for the gaudy eminence and power of the leader of a band of lynchers, for the mean admiration of mean men.

Indeed, another characterization labeled him as

the monumental fakir of history.

Those were the descriptions, however, not of our current leader, but of the first real “progressive” in American history, President Theodore Roosevelt, assessments by H. L. Mencken and Woodrow Wilson (as cited by David Greenberg in his book Republic of Spin, which is well worth reading). What they demonstrate is that even knowledgeable people may have slanted views of figures of their times. The terms they used then were comparable to what is said now about our president.

As I said in a prior message, history is not always correct – and even honest testimony of the times may be wrong. In this case they were misperceptions of honorable people, but they are more often the creations of politicians and their publicists. Those people have the job of convincing you that black is white, if you look at it the “right” way. And they have the responsibility for helping us form all our opinions in the manner they (are paid to) consider correct. And they also help us form images of the personalities they represent. Positive images, of course. Dedicated to truth and the American way. It's thought control.

But for every spinmeister who says “black is white” there is another who maintains that “white is black.” The script doesn't call for the view that black is black and white white. Accurate and objective determination of the facts is not part of the job; the challenge is to convince voters that there is only one way to understand the facts, and they'll tell you what it is, and anyone who disagrees – anyone who interprets events and people differently – is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Of course they are referring to those in the opposing camp.

Ideology is the prism of understanding. It is not only the moral and educated view, but the tool for convincing others of “Truth.” It's not always necessary. Some have internalized the prism and cannot see anything except through it. They're enlightened. Except to those with a different prism who consider them evil, while they themselves are virtuous.

“Spin-artists” are exemplars of this creative activity. They paint the activities of those they represent (and their families) in warm colors and attractive garb performing virtuous acts, while the opponents are depicted pejoratively, as unattractive stick figures out to do evil. And we can have no traffic with evil (except in a close election between unpopular candidates in which it may be necessary to proclaim our choice as the lesser of evils). And if we cannot tolerate evil we certainly cannot compromise with it. In the time until the next election we must stand our ground against those who aren't worthy of our admiration. In fact when the time comes we'll be pointing out whatever those specializing in spin tell us about the errors of the opposition. Almost all campaign publicity will be negative. It will be more a matter of why we should not vote for the opposing candidate than why we should vote for theirs.

When the election is over, then, we're faced with more contention than cooperation; with avoidance rather than action. And too often the supporters of those who were defeated are so convinced that evil has triumphed that they question the results, protest the acts of the winner, and refuse to cooperate with the opposition. Ideological purity, as defined by those hired to sell it, and teach voters to see it positively in every act performed by those they represent, is more important than honesty. Party loyalty and discipline trump doing the job for which the candidate ran, and for which some were elected. It is better to stand up for proclaimed virtue than to sit down and work things out with those whom your pitchmen have depicted as charlatans.

The challenge to us is to tease from the advocacy journalism we face – that of the spin doctors of the press – what we can of acts rather than the depictions of those acts by others. Difficult as it may be our job is to judge on the basis of accomplishments, not on the judgments of those who oppose those accomplishments.

“Spin” is not a new phenomenon nor a recent technique for controlling the mind of the listener, but it is a hindrance to objectivity. It is a barrier to intelligent evaluation. And it can – no, it probably will – obstruct any achievements by our government. That's the job of the practitioners of spin.

Happy Independence Day.  Make your mind independent of those who seek to take it over.

June 20, 2017  

Do You Really Think So?

I don't speak for men.

I don't speak to them, so how could I possibly speak for them?

I don't speak to women either. In fact, I try very hard not to speak to anyone. Of course I exchange the usual pleasantries. How can I avoid them? But I don't take them seriously. Nor does anyone else. They're void of content and they're void of truth. When was the last someone answered you honestly when you asked how he and his (or she and her) family were? And I avoid parties like the plague.ⁱ No. Scratch the simile. They are the plague. They're places where people dissimulate or get drunk and brag. Sort of like bars but more genteel.

Anyway, though, when I occasionally speak to my wife about all the things women do wrongⁱⁱ I usually tell her how men think or what they do. It's a cover for expressing my own feelings, since it's hard to talk about myself openly. But that's what I'll do here. So if you catch me talking about what men think you should know that the only male mind to which I have access is my own, but I have trouble phrasing things that way. (Be aware, though, that some of the problems I face are not unique. As much as I try to avoid the thoughts of others, I know enough about men to realize that many of the views I have are shared by lots of them.)

Men are transparent. When they ask a question it's usually because they want to know what the answer is. Looking for an ulterior motive or a hidden agenda rather than answering the question is not likely to be productive, though it will be irritating. A “yes-no” question is best answered with a “yes” or “no,” not an endless explanation or analysis. Yet when a man asks a woman a question,ⁱⁱⁱ it's likely that rather than an answer he'll get an interrogation; why he asked the question takes precedence over giving an answer. Makes sense. Who knows what was going through his mind? It might be prudent to change the answer depending on what he's thinking and what his real question is. He's hiding that.^iv And it's the obligation of a woman to know what a man is thinking.

Another potential area of conflict is the dispute about who is right and who is wrong. But that's easily solved. The man is always wrong – especially if he's right. “If a man says something in a forest and no woman hears … 'He's still wrong.'” I'm always wrong. That's the assumption, and I'm used to it. Her default is to disagree with me even before I've had a chance to express myself. That's not unreasonable since I've always admitted being wrong when we disagree, whether I believe it or not. It's better than arguing and easier to recover from. An apology is better than a fight.

A woman assumes a man always knows what she's talking about, even when she's changed the subject without saying so. If it's clear to her, it should be clear to him. And she assumes that if he didn't hear what she said, he wasn't listening. Sometimes she “remembers” what she or the man said and he doesn't recall it.^v There is sometimes reason to suspect that her “memory” is a wish rather than a fact, but he'll never win the argument if the man says so. It's better to apologize. She won't.

Women are far more curious than men. They want to know everything that's going on. And they feel obliged to offer an opinion on everything. And a recommendation. Whether or not it's solicited. For example: A few months ago I went to a (female) dermatologist about a minor problem. Noting a hole in my undershirt, she told me that I should buy new underwear.^vi My (male) internist has never suggested that although he's had many more opportunities.

I've also noticed that my wife interrupts me a lot. Mostly I'm used to it and keep myself from interrupting her interruption. I'm bothered, but I can deal with it. There are times, however, when I really get annoyed – like when I start asking a question and she interrupts after a few words, providing a long answer before I finish my inquiry. The answer sometimes has nothing to do with the question I wanted to ask. She's convinced, though, that she knows what I'm thinking and she can respond immediately to the stupid question she anticipates I'm going to ask. She can read my mind just as she is certain that I can read hers and know what she is talking about, even if it doesn't relate to anything that has come before. But I need space. Intellectual and emotional as well as physical. My thoughts are my thoughts, unless I want to reveal them.

I may love her but the reality is that I don't understand my wife. Sometimes. But that's OK. At times she doesn't understand me either. I'm sure that a list of particulars like this^vii will be answered by a bill from her that's far longer. After all, men have many more flaws than women, and the misperceptions on my list simply reflect my inability to think clearly, or remember all of the ignorant statements I've made, and foolish things I've done.

It has nothing to do with men's inability to understand women^viii – though that is certainly the case and can muddy the waters tremendously. It's more that neither of us can read minds, and much of the misunderstandings arise from a presumed understanding of what we're thinking or what immediately preceded the statement or question that was not clear.

But that shouldn't be a surprise. Men and women are different. Vive la différence. Their bodies and their minds are different. Their abilities and their interests are different. They'll never understand each other, however much they may profit by their interactions.^ix Live with it.

I do. I said it^x and I'm glad.

Next episode:  "Nota Bene 2" – More grist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I        And organic food.

ii        In my opinion.

iii       Enough artifice. When I ask a question is what I really mean.

iv       It's interesting that women seek conversation and socialization from men, but discourage it be analyzing whatever the man says. Why open your mouth if whatever you say will be analyzed or spun rather than accepted?

v        If she didn't hear what he (thinks he) said, it's because he remembers wrong. He never said it. And if he did, he was speaking too quietly, or there were distractions, or he was facing in the wrong direction, or … And that's not what he said anyway. Fortunately she was smart enough not to act on it because what he said was wrong. Like everything else he says.

vi       At this point let me apologize to my wife. Mea culpa. If she reads this it's likely she'll be embarrassed. That's why I haven't told her about the incident.

vii      These are just a few of the issues between men and women that come to mind. There are many more that I won't mention like “multitasking,” a flawed issue if ever there was one (see “Two For The Price Of One,” published May 1, 2011), and the idiotic dispute about whether a toilet seat should be up or down – as if there is only one correct answer. Whoops! I mentioned some of them.

viii     And vice versa.

ix       You thought I was going to write something else, didn't you.

x        Actually, because of the nature of the ceremony, what I said was different, but, happily, it sealed the bargain.

Bill And Coup

                                                                                                       

I fault myself for my generosity. And for my trust in human nature. Trusting in the human nature of legislators is probably a mistake since there is the inherent assumption that they are human.ⁱ And that human nature is good. In retrospect, the evidence for both assumptions is meager at best. In addition to their quest for specific personal benefits, politicians are eager to please potential voters (and donors as wellⁱⁱ). And they're likely to rush into action to solve all the problems that their constituents perceive. Their intentions are good, but the road ...ⁱⁱⁱ

Their intentions are good,^iv but the legislation they propose is formulated by their staffs, and the specifics are delineated by regulators. And the result is a flood of incomprehensible bills which are accompanied by rules and regulations that make complex and predatory laws themselves seem like models of virtue, clarity, and simplicity. No one can understand them – not their “authors” not those who vote on them. Our servants have taken over.

But that's by design.^v A few good “sound bites” that express concern for the “unfortunate,” or for the middle-class (if that's more representative of the district he represents or seeks to represent), will establish the author's good will.^vi Unfortunately, he's simply “talking the talk.” Congress^vii has an ax to grind, and it grinds it to a fine degree for anything but cutting expenditures. Politicians buy votes with funds that aren't their own. Along with the office goes a big payoff, so it's worth it. Especially since it's bought with taxpayer money. According to the Center for Responsive Politics^viii the median wealth of a member of the House of Representatives in 2012 was about $6,000,000, and Senators were worth twice that.^ix I don't know (but I doubt it) if that includes the benefits they'll earn after they retire or are not reelected, or the amounts they'll earn as lobbyists and “consultants,” but those amounts are not inconsiderable.

Much of this is because we don't know what they're doing in our names. In a previous essay^x I bewailed the fact that so many laws are beyond our comprehension, and they should be limited to 10,000 words. In retrospect, however, a lot can be hidden in a bill of that length^xi – especially when misleading political language is used, and regulations, on which no one votes, will flesh things out. So I'll try to simplify and clarify the process. I have no doubt that our crafty politicians will find a way around new rules, but they'll have to work harder to do so.

In any event, if those we choose to serve us are asked to do so – to let us understand from their legislation and to perform their duties because it is virtuous to do so even without personal benefit – they might be helped by some guidelines, especially ones that they understand. To wit:

First of all, no bill should have more words than the average comic book.^xii

Laws should be written in language understandable by the average taker of the SATs (using the mean reading comprehension score in the most recent exam) – it is understood that the SATs are an overestimate of the ability of citizens since only those who wish to attend college take it. Those without such goals, or those who are convinced that they won't get in anywhere, are less likely to do so.

Several things may result from these two guidelines, including the following:

       The bills may be more understandable to members of Congress and to the public,
       The bills will be short enough to read before voting,
       Congress may be inspired to improve the level of education – theirs and the public's, and
       Congress may pressure the College (Entrance Examination) Board to make the exams   easier so they can result in higher grades for those examined and the congressmen can make their bills more complex and difficult to understand.

Surely members of Congress will need well-educated aides to do some of the work for them. But that is understandable and justified. After all, Congressmen work too hard. I know that because that is what they say, and our public officials wouldn't mislead us.

But what kind of laws do we need?

The first bill should eliminate any differences between members of Congress and the people they “serve.” There should be no exemptions from the law,^xiii nor special perks – especially those that last a lifetime. That should begin immediately and members should not benefit from their jobs. Perhaps this condition should be retroactive. They present themselves as, and the public believes them to be (or would like to believe them to be), interested in making our country better. They claim to be in it for us, not for themselves. Let's make it easier for them to keep this vow.

The second requirement that should be passed is one that requires a (roughly) balanced budget. The cost of the program should be listed as part of the legislation so people know what they'll have to pay. It is not being suggested that there be a specific offset given since a binary choice should not be imposed on those voting. It is being suggested, however, that the public be shown lists of proposed and existing programs and their costs, and that some mechanism be implemented that allows the voters to indicate preferences for what they get and what they're willing to give up to get it.

And one further basic guideline is that the votes for and against all legislation be recorded and published so voters know what those whom they have chosen and hired to do their bidding are actually doing.

The guidelines and basic rules I've listed, and the ability of both voters and the media to understand other proposals, will, more than likely, keep legislation understandable. The restriction on length will require that complex bills be broken down into smaller components. While there may be some concern that such a method may lead to important components of a bill being voted down while the bill, itself, passes. If, however, that component is defeated because people understand what it says, perhaps that's a good thing. (Additionally it will be much easier to spot unjustified benefits for the Congressmen and their friends and families.) And maybe we can regain the possession of our government from those who have usurped it.

Next episode: “From Nicéphore Niépce To The Sight Bite” – You know the value of a picture. (“A .jpg is worth a thousand .txt's”ⁱ)

 

I        I'm not referring to their biological species. Of course they're human as opposed vultures (I guess), but I mean the qualities that we define as such when, for example, we speak of someone as a real human being.

ii       In scientific publications nowadays, the authors must disclose the identities of those who have contributed to the work covered, and to any benefits they may have received by anyone affected by the material. Perhaps a similar rule should apply to legislators and their works.

iii      “Saul [Bellow] was suspicious of reformers, those who thought that they could perfect the human nature whose imperfections he chronicled in his writing. He would discuss the collapse of some faltering reform project like campaign financing with a sigh, "Another screw-up job by the Good Intentions Paving Company."

From “Saul Bellow's escape from time” By Eugene Cullen Kennedy, professor emeritus of psychology at Loyola University of Chicago. The article appeared in the Chicago Tribune, April 8, 2005.

iv       At least that's what they want us to believe.

v        Lincoln spoke of “... government of the people, by the people, and for the people ...” Sadly we've come to a point in our history where it's government instead of the people. The legislators (and other politicians) are in charge – not the people who have elected them.

vi       No connection with the original bill will be made later on when the various negative effects devolve upon the voter, and the benefits accrue to those who have contributed to the legislators' campaigns.

vii      Of course this refers to politicians at all levels – local as well as national. Congress itself is the most obvious object of this criticism because it receives the most attention from the media and is one of the least trusted groups in American society. (And similarly placed groups are probably the source of similar misgivings in other countries.)

viii      See http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/averages.php.

ix       They're an influential part of the “one percent” whom we're expected to hate, but to whom we turn when we're dissatisfied with individual incomes.

x        “... and for other purposes, ” February 10, 2013.

xi       Of course they may use complexity to hide selfishness – their own and that of their supporters. Many of those supporters, especially unions, are loud in proclaiming the need for economy, but view cutbacks of their own ranks or benefits as intolerable and counterproductive. They see the work they do as the backbone of American culture, which will suffer unacceptable harm if they are forced to sacrifice any of the gains they have received in the past, or if any programs in which their members are involved are trimmed.

xii       I don't know offhand what that is, but I suspect that the GAO can determine it if the legislators, their aides, and other civil servants find the calculation too difficult.

xiii     And repeal or revision should be difficult and extremely transparent to the voter. Incidentally, any employment of government officials (including civil servants) for the length of one senate term (or longer) to influence new legislation of other government functions should be outlawed and uncompromisingly punished. Six years should be enough time for their influence to have faded and for them to get honest jobs.

xiv      That's from a t-shirt I saw on line.