TAGGED AND BAGGED

I find many sources of inspiration from my blog tags. I almost always respond to the ones I agree with or find a new and useful perspective or experience in. I mostly write of the ones in which I disagree. I just do not usually link to them if they are a persons opinion, not wishing to turn communication into a bunch of you said and I said but neither listen with an ear or give in an inch .

Political discourse is often filled with the false premise, it often dependent on out of context “truths” or “facts” in the ad hominem offencive attack. These sorts of false premises, false dichotomies and other mechanisms for hiding bias under alleged reason is the norm for much political antagonism. It is easy to dismiss ones opponents when their machinations are so evident to you. Ones own? Not so much.

UNDERSTANDING WHY WE DON’T UNDERSTAND, NOR WISH TO.

Politics is all about representing the attachments to ones identity as it applies to personal and civic life. I am identified with my side for some reason. These reasons can be solid and upfront, but are somewhat more likely mushy and attached to parents or ones place in life and with whom one associates or admires in the culture. These can be dubious since they introduce emotional notions that can have even more power than fact or proved theory, yet stand as an apparent ground on which my identity is firmly rooted. Many political moves are meant to shift this sand of emotional foundation, pouring water at its footings to sink it or slide your position more towards one area. This is then propaganda or other misdirection administered as if for ones own good.

Most political adds are made of this material, false premises creating whole scenarios that have little merit in true reason but are meant to turn those insecurities of ours into solid products, be they merchandise or votes. If these greatly influence your choices, you are probably quite uniformed.

TWO MISLEADING COMMENTS REGARDING THE ELECTIONS MADE TODAY

First was one I read on my post, a scenario of an Obama presidency. It was predicated on his “Christ” (my addition) like promise to talk with our enemies. The quite long and involved with foreign relations gone bad scenario that ensued was all based on the false assumption that since you said you were going to meet with your enemies, you thus were going to ignore your friends. Then it went on with the bad consequences of the Obama presidency. Ending with a quick quip about crushing the military’s moral by pulling out just in time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Well there was another false premise; that might guarantees right. It often, as many military and intelligence assessments have suggested, led to an empowering of our adversaries in the region mentioned in the post, especially since after the might much wrong assumption and expectations were relied on as if they were facts.

I could equally posit a scenario that since the manipulated elections of 2000 and 2004, the USA has been violated from within, and so invited the ensuing disasters, by betraying its inherent trust in truthfulness. That the military itself, was betrayed by ideology and its host of false assumptions, tucked under highly questionable”facts” rendered out of bounds for democracies fourth estate, due to patriotic authoritarian march in line cult-think. Of course. Exactly what we have always fought for?

I could say that yes, the first Clinton administration was inept enough on defense, especially on small groups that could cause major harm, but that the one that replaced it, finished the pulling down of the American public trust around their ankles. The doing the opposite of whatever liberals say to do philosophy, serving to open the doors to 9-11 further than before. In all likelihood, what we experienced was what leadership is like that has been propped up and bailed out by power interest all their lives, and what that kind of arrogant yet naive dubious character traits trickle down from their model into government, leading to the countless scandals and deceptions the American public, including the military, has had to endure.

Personally, I would put more trust in naive good intentions, in a trust for hope and change, than the kind of power corruption classes that have come to dominate and perpetuate a dominator/ subservient psychology that thrives off of conflict at home and in the world, seemingly wed to imperialist ambitions of world domination.  These now codified into lifestyle, our way of life, our freedoms, or even vital national interest.  Exactly whose interest are they in?  How seductive it is to think you can force others to think some other way, as a quick fix to deep systemic world inequalities, and resource depletion and environmental pollution.  while our leaders come to double talk morals and behavior to the world as if omniscient and beyond rational questioning.

Enough said on how might guarantees true results as promised.

PART TWO

This morning there was an interview on Democracy Now, where two representatives, one of Obama and one of Clinton, discussed their view of the realities of last nights primary. Two narratives seem to be in place; one where Obama’s string of victories is broken, indicating some kind of sea change. The other that he essentially has the delegates rapped up, and did very well since just two or so weeks ago Clinton was supposed to trounce him in Texas.  (I am now running my impressions on how the conversation seemed to be and not exact statements.)

One false premise is about the “momentum” illusion that at times takes hold as a fact, even though it may be a condition of many variables, variables that would not always hold steady down the line, like historical state tendencies. But this notion becomes good emotional political fodder once unstoppable presumed momentum is broken.  We can declare everything has changed, when something has changed, but what that is may be simply the states traditional tendencies held somewhat.  Media interest certainly want the attention a fight brings to their advertisers, so pundits will declare someones sky is possibly falling. There can be this silent bias to a see-saw session being as long as possible.

The premise that two people from the same party, one who wins and the other loses the state, translates directly to the other party standing in as the winner or loser is how sound? What kind of futuristic wishy washy math is that? “I’d vote for the woman, but not the guy in my party?” Or the other way around? Is that the reasoning we are now appealing to?

Both sides argued their viewpoints in talking point purity, until Amy Goodman asked a simple question at the finish about what mistakes the candidates had made along the way. The Obama rep, seemed to give an honest inward looking probe of a possible misstep and ended it on that. The Clinton rep., who has a book out on how women take over the reign’s of power or something like that. (I’m trying to leave the exactness (quotes and such) out of my point as to not smudge my subjective impression of a skewed answer.) This Clinton rep. took advantage of her place in the situation, opportunistically.

OH! THE LAST CARD-SAY. HUM!

The Clinton woman, and author, went on to say the public was not seeing Clinton’s human side (the public or medias fault?), more or less, then went on, being the last speaker, to finish on Clinton’s strong points and “betterness”.

Well I thought; “This response did not truly answer the question about the candidates mistake, but instead, went on to finish on all her presumed strengths. This is an opportunistic political taking advantage of the situation of being a last presenter and the opponent getting no fair time to rebut what was intended as an introspective point on humility and campaign experience learned.”

ARMS WRESTLING

Politics? Yes. But the other guy did no such thing as I recall. It was a rare chance for unscripted introspection, and was initiated as such. Not the same old thing. This troubles me some about the Clinton and McCain campaigns morphing into we rule by the same old thing. It is how business is done, experience with the same old thing. Fear based “toughness” more important than pursuing whole understanding?

Well from my own biased point of view; if this is how woman are to gain authority and responsibilities in governing more, that example was not one I would endorse. Out doing what has been the game of men at their own tricks, seems not the kind of power I want more of!