History and technology... hysterics and trysts

It has been an interesting week or so in politics, hasn't it? I really do like politics. Just as I like a real messy car wreck, train wreck, or divorce. On the Left, we have Rep. Anthony Weiner dalliances in phone sex and sexting. On the Right, we have Sarah Palin's view of Paul Revere.

The question I have is which one, if any, is all that important to we the voters? Possibly one of the above. But they are attention getters, aren't they?

Mr. Weiner is annoying little man, in my view. And now I see him as even worse. An annoying little man who has no respect for his wife. I feel sorry for his wife but do not feel sorry for him. It's a pity that people succumb to urges because the ones who suffer most have little or nothing to do with it. Although I did hear/read that some moronic pundit questioned whether some fault might lay with Mrs Weiner I find that idea to be disgusting. I have been married before and I was the last in that marriage to stray. I did not stray because of what she did, I strayed because I gave into an opportunity. What my ex did had no real bearing on that other than to provide me with a rationalization if I chose to delude myself in order to deny responsibility. My cheating did not end the marriage, her cheating didn't either. The fact that we could cheat was what ended it.

Mr. Weiner is not resigning his seat in the House. In a typical display of arrogance by those in powerful positions, he is denying any "legal" wrongdoing and saying his constituents can decide if his judgment is poor enough to warrant his losing the next election. This is called "clinging to power" and chutzpah. I don't have a lot of faith that his constituents will actually make a reasoned decision. After all, Barney Frank still has his seat years after his boyfriend was caught running a male prostitution ring out of Franks' basement and Ted Kennedy got through that pesky Chappaquiddick thing. I won't mention Charlie Rangel.

So let's go to the Right now. Sarah Palin made some offhand remarks in response to a question about Paul Revere. Ms Palin has a problem with off the cuff remarks. Her detractors jump on each and every one as proof that she is unworthy of the attention she gets. Thus adding to that attention. And, of course, this one incident has triggered a firestorm from the Left's blogs. I ran into a "discussion" about this incident and made the remark that it didn't really matter about the facts being right or wrong, that I considered that she was offering an opinion more than a history lesson, and that what I saw in the comments (I think there were a few hundred at the time) was the result of "ideological perspective and perception."

Apparently, some historians have taken a similar stance. They say she wasn't entirely wrong but that her view was a bit twisted. I would say misleading or misunderstood. Let's review what I know about Revere's ride...

He was not the only rider. There were two others. He was tasked to ride to Lexington and warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that the British troops were coming (By sea, if I recall) to arrest them. As he rode, he raised the alarm at various villages along the way. He was arrested at some point and, during that arrest, allegedly told the Bri9tish that they will be met by resistance from the Colonialists.

You can say that Ms Palin might be well advised to not make off the cuff remarks. But she is desirous of attention and will not likely heed such sage advice.

The economy continues to defy the efforts of the administration to turn it around and the usual spin is offered to explain how the horrible numbers are not what they seem.

A fun week or two all around, I'd say. Here's a couple of things to look at and muse on...

The U.S. Debt in real time.

Dirty Spending Secrets of the government.

Why must we argue?

To continue on my theme about debate and discussion on the web, I'd like to delve into why and how we engage in them. I say "we" meaning I and all those others who "contribute" to the cacophony that passes for the (sometimes heated) discussions in the comments following an article.

For me, it is simple. I love to argue. I was not a good boxer or wrestler, my physical fighting method is chaotic and, often, desperate. I grew up losing every physical encounter (fight) with my older brother. But I could make him look foolish; I could outwit him in a verbal exchange. Which often led to those physical encounters but, for some reason, that didn't deter me. I am not alone, apparently, not by a long shot. Plenty of other people love to argue. Some are formidable opponents but most are not. Some people can use words like finely crafted weapons leaving you gravely wounded and bleeding (metaphorically speaking) and others can find the weaknesses in your armor (argument) and exploit them. Most, however, are operating entirely from emotion.

I mentioned Sarah Palin and Barack Obama previously. These are polarizing figures. As are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Arianna Huffington, Jane Fonda, and Nancy Pelosi. This is just a small sample list, there are so many others like them. People rarely have a neutral stand about anything these people do or say. Very few do not have some deep seated emotional response to these folks.

Reading the commentary following an article is like watching at the audience at a cockfight or dogfight (which I can assure you I do not attend) or any sports event where people can choose, or have, a favored player or team. Emotion trumps logic. Objectivity flies out the proverbial window.

I just recently had a short exchange with another commenter where he or she proved my point. My opponent didn't realize this; he or she was arguing about the person who was the subject of the article and I was arguing about the motivations of the commenters. While he or she was complaining about the wrongness of some statement the subject person made, I was expressing my position that the facts were unimportant to the commenters. Because I had taken a neutral position on the "facts" involved, I was jumped on by those who had an emotional stake in the "facts" being wrong. Since I was not attacked by those who sided with the subject person, I must assume I either came across as a supporter of the target person (and, therefore, not a "threat" to the supporters) or that my position was understood by them. I strongly suspect the reason to be the former... I just was not deemed a threat

When someone learns to box, wrestle, or just debate they learn a discipline. They learn to react objectively, rather than emotionally. The best fighters/debaters use emotions only as sources of energy but keep them at bay as they make decisions in tactics and moves. They also pick up (or have) a knack for provoking emotions in their opponents.

Let me provide an example of what happens when an emotional person and a disciplined person have an altercation. Back in the 70's, I was working in a maintenance center one morning when the "Mountain Man" (I forget his name but he always made much of the fact that he lived in what are called mountains east of San Diego) came in looking for Larry. These two were pretty much equal in size and age. But Larry had been a Seabee, trained by the Marines, and had spent a few years with them. I don't believe Mountain Man had any such experience.

Mountain Man came in angry and demanding about Larry having "taken" his parking spot. It seems that Mountain Man had been cruising around the block waiting for a space to open up. Just as one did, Larry turned onto the street and slid into it. Mountain Man yelled at him that he was waiting for that spot and Larry simply ignored him and walked into the office.

So, Mountain Man approaches Larry yelling and menacing, yells in Larry's face a few not so kind words and starts to take a swing at him. Larry smoothly blocks the punch and decks Mountain Man with a single right hook. Discipline beat emotion. I have seen this happen a number of times.

Emotions, however, are what draw us into these exchanges. Like bees to flowers, we are compelled by our emotions to take a risk, to enter the fray. Emotions drive us. But emotions can also interfere with our ability to attain a goal. They can get in the way. Objectivity must overcome emotion, I think, if we are to succeed. A total lack of emotion, however, may be just as detrimental as a total lack of objectivity.


When you get right down to it, we humans are such simple creatures. Not nearly so complex and mysterious as we would like to believe.