The Effect of BS

Words can elevate, they can inspire; they can call people to action. Words can also drag you down, they can make you look ignorant, they can make you look foolish. Worst of all, under the right circumstances, they can make you look disdainful and arrogant.

Recently, the President of the United States called his political rival a “bullshitter” during a campaign speech. Yep, profanity on the stump, uttered by the President of the United States, as part of his prepared remarks. We are not talking about someone who thinks his microphone is off, muttering to a campaign aide; or who just dropped a teleprompter on his foot and cut loose with an understandably colorful exclamatory metaphor. No, in this case, Obama used profanity to curry favor with his audience, he used it on purpose and in a calculated way.

The English Language has deteriorated over the last few decades to a point where profanity is now seen as little more than verbal punctuation. Our standards have so slipped that verbal obscenity is now actually so commonplace all over our media, from rap “music” to shows like “Family Guy” that entertainers who stay “clean” are news. All this has degraded our culture, coarsened our national discourse, gave us childish and imagination-free “entertainment,” and left us wondering where the line should be drawn, if it should be drawn anywhere.

Now the President, who has traditionally been above such things, has weighed in on the side of decay.

There was a time when we actually looked up the President. He was a kind of national father figure and we expected him to be better and wiser than we are. That lasted pretty much until George Bush I, when the country really began the process of polarization that has brought us to the political divide we face today. Now, we separate the office from the man, and pay lip service to the office while exposing and exploiting every human moment, every foible, every personal mistake, every difficulty faced by the man occupying the office.

In this environment, our Presidents have tried to maintain a level of dignity, staying above the fray and working to preserve the prestige of the presidency. Clinton did some damage, true, but most of his issues took place before his presidential term; and as for his transgressions during his presidency, they were dealt with in a constitutionally appropriate way.

On the face of it, you might consider the things that Clinton did to be worse than Obama’s profane description of Romney, and on many levels you would be right. However, we tend to expect lies and sexual bad behavior from our politicians, an expectation that has existed throughout human history, no matter how elevated the culture. What we don’t expect is for our leader to purposely embrace cultural decay to win political points, and that is what Obama did. True, he has no valid arguments to make on the economy, in foreign policy, or anything else, so he has to accuse Romney of being deceitful. Maybe Obama was simply running out of ways to call Romney a liar, but with that one word, he degraded himself, he degraded his office, and he has demonstrated profound arrogance in not addressing that issue.

Is that what we want in a president?

Do you see clear differences between the candidates on anything except the economy. Yes, there it is clear, one is a capitalist and the other is not. So far, so good, and if that was all there was to it, that would be fine. Did you hear in their answers anything at all that would lead you to think one would be materially better than the other when it comes to foreign policy?

Consider the idea of a single rule of law that covers all people, all the time; and ask yourself if that is what we have in this country under this president, and whether or not anyone from either party can be held today to the same standards we held Nixon to back in the 1970s.

Patrick Henry on Experience and How it Informs the 2012 Race

Patrick Henry—you know, patriot, founding father, revolutionary, etc.—once said: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” He was looking at the lot of the common man under European monarchies and he knew, like his fellow enlightenment thinkers Donne, Locke, and others, that it was time for a change. Of course, this was when the idea of representative democracy was coming into its own, and its great experiment, the United States of America, was about to erupt as a great beacon of hope in the West. Henry’s words were a call for change, in his case revolutionary change. In last night’s debate, we that same message, though not quite as simply nor as eloquently put.

As he has in his previous debates, Mitt Romney stuck to a simple, straightforward message: The foreign and economic policies of the past four years have left us weakened and unable to properly meet the challenges we face around the world. He backed up that assertion in a way that would make Patrick Henry proud; he cited the experiences of the last four years.

Obama had a slightly more difficult job: He had to defend his policies in the face of Iran’s constantly developing nuclear technology; our obscene levels of national debt, unemployment, and general economic ruin; the resolute resurgence of Russia and China; our inability to properly deal with Al Quida…in other words, the experiences of the last four years that were the direct result of his policies. As a result, he did his best to go on the offensive, citing apparent flip-flops on the Romney side and doing his best to criticize his proposals for the navy, at one point reminding Romney that we no longer use bayonets as much (he’s wrong about that), and describing the aircraft carrier in terms that made me wonder whether or not he’d actually seen one. I have to wonder whether or not that kind of snarky absurdity helped or hurt him.

We’ll learn that as the dust settles and we look for changes in the polls. However, partisanship aside, this debate was instructive in one respect. Experience counts. We have all experienced the last four years, we have all seen what has happened both here and overseas, and we have all felt the direct consequences of Obama’s economic policies in our wallets. For true believers on either side, the actual results don’t matter, they will argue that their guy has won. Happily, neither group is enough of a voting block to elect a president. For the rest of us, this debate was a reminder to look at the experiences of the last four years and ask a question: Do we want more of the same?

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.–Patrick Henry

The Honest Politician

Everyone likes to think that their guy is honest. If you are a democrat, odds are you thought that Joe Biden was more honest than Paul Ryan; if you are a republican, odds are good you took the opposite position. That goes to two things: the credibility of the candidate, and the bias of the audience.

In my October 4, 2012 entry, Romney and the Joy of the Simple Message, I discussed how a simple, straightforward message that can pass the test posed by Ockham’s Razor by relying on the fewest number of assumptions is best, and how Romney’s jobs first message, in passing that test, was the more credible, a fact that certainly contributed to Romney’s victory. We saw much the same from Ryan, though he dealt with more topics than Romney faced, and that approach served him well; but we saw something in Biden’s performance that can serve as an example to writers, orators, or anyone else who tries to convince others that their point of view is correct.

Early in the debate, the issue of the terrorist attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, came up. When confronted with the issue, Biden made up excuses, including a slowly evolving intelligence assessment that began as the “riots against that anti-Islam film” story but eventually settled on the truth, that it was a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with any film, Islam-related or not. He claimed that no one asked for more security, and then went on to attack Romney for his reaction to the killings.

This exchange is so telling, and makes such a clear object lesson on the necessity of honesty, because the truth came out a week before the vice-presidential debate! The news has been filled with stories of the spin that the Obama Administration has tried to put on the Benghazi attack, along with proof that the embassy staff were begging for additional security as well as proof that those pleas fell on deaf ears in Obama’s State Department and, likely, elsewhere in the Executive Branch.

When so confronted, Biden had two choices: He could argue and lie, knowing that the truth was already out there; or he could admit everything and have a mea culpa moment on behalf of Obama and himself. Biden chose the former, and that was a fatal mistake. The history of politics has taught us that the cover-up is always worse than the shame or guilt being hidden; the lie is always more damaging to the liar. The old biblical canard, “the truth shall set you free” is true, and ought to be the watchword of writers, artists, and politicians alike.

For most folks who do not fall within the “democrat true believer” camp, the obvious lie about the embassy attack destroyed any credibility Biden had. Therefore, the question to be asked is, given the notoriety of the issue, and the fact that the truth is already out there, why not make the integrity move, take responsibility, and seek forgiveness? Also, why not do that on some of the other issues, where we already know the truth in spite of the Obama Administration’s various explanations. Biden would have done his ticket a real favor by being honest with the American People, and he would have bolstered his own credibility in the debate, perhaps to a point where his grins and grimaces would not be front page news this morning.

So, how does this apply to writers? Simple: Readers know when you are lying. Treat them with respect and tell them the truth, and you will be amazed at how your work takes off!

Some Musings on Tonight’s Vice-Presidential Debate

There can be little doubt that tonight’s debate will be a make or break event. If Ryan is, like Romney, the clear winner; especially if he uses the same simple message and honest delivery, then the entire Democrat ticket will be discredited and their cause set back even more than after Obama’s humiliation. If, however, Biden comes out on top, then there will be a lot to explain. How, for example, did the gaffetastic Mr. Biden manage to stay on message and articulate his points to gain an advantage over his opponent when Obama, billed as the master orator and the smartest guy in the room, failed so badly. In the first case, the entire democrat ticket is damaged; in the second, only Obama.

Does it really matter either way?

Shock and Dismay at the Daily Beast

I may have mentioned in one of my earlier blogs that when writing an expository piece, it is good to use actual data to bolster your argument. That way, you don’t seem to just be flapping your gums and praying no one notices that the only thing coming out from between them is hot air. Now that we have some distance from the first presidential debate, also known as the Night of the Living Dead for those expecting some animation from the Obama side of the stage, we can see how the Left has taken it.

Badly, to say the least.

Now, bear in mind that Romney did little more than what one might expect at a spirited board of directors meeting. It was not rocket science. The man had one message, jobs, and he stuck to it. His rhetoric was not even particularly compelling. He let the message itself carry the load, and it worked. Now, several days later, the leftist media has finally settled on a reason for his resounding win: He lied!

That is the explanation we find all over the media, now that Al Gore’s altitude excuse and the “magic hankie” excuse have been debunked, and it is peppered throughout Andrew Sullivan’s latest rant at The Daily Beast called Did Obama Just Through the Entire Election Away? True, the brunt of his dismay and anger is aimed squarely at Obama, but he does accuse Romney of lying his way to victory, saying in one part, “Lies work when they are unrebutted live on stage,” to try and explain the massive swing in support away from Obama. Later on in the piece he laments Obama’s inability to recover from the debate losses by adding, “…when a president self-immolates on live TV, and his opponent shines with lies and smiles, and a record number of people watch, it’s hard to see how a president and his party recover.”

The problem that Sullivan and his cohorts in the Left Wing have is that they cannot pinpoint Romney’s great lies. When you call someone a liar, it helps to actually describe the lie. They have not done that. Let me, therefore, give them a hand:

• Was it when Romney said jobs were his priority? He is a businessman, a jobs guy, if you will, so that seems pretty much in character.
• Was it when Romney linked jobs to energy production? Any first year economics student can tell you there is a connection between low energy costs and higher economic output.
• Maybe it was when he said Obamacare would destroy jobs? That is a tricky one, since few people if any have actually read all 2,700 pages of the Affordable Care Act and fewer still understand it. However, since it includes a large number of tax increases, and we know taxes on business inhibits hiring, it makes sense.

The bottom line is that Romney looked at Obama’s first term through the lens of a businessman and simply reported what was wrong with what he saw. If he actually was lying, I would love for someone on the Left to point out the lie. Until then, it is little more than whining and fingerpointing.

The First Sale Principle and What it Means to You

Show of hands: If you had to pay the copyright holder when you decide to resell something, say that year-old laptop upon which you’ve been writing the Great American Novel, since your good Uncle Fester just gave you a new one, would you resell it? More to the point, would you have bought the thing in the first place?

That, my friends, is precisely what may happen, and soon. At the end of the month, the US Supreme Court is hearing Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, which came to the Supreme Court from the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Kirtsaeng was a Thai student who was studying in the US. He discovered that he could get the text books he needed much cheaper in Thailand than here in the US, so he got his family to buy them there and ship them to him. When he was done he sold them all and made a mint. That, of course, ticked-off John Wiley & Sons, who sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringment.

Kirtsaeng’s defense is the First Sale Doctrine, which was recognized in the High Court in 1908 as a part of American copyright law. The Doctrine says that you can resell whatever you own without considering the copyright holder because their rights were satisfied on the first sale. According to the Second Circuit, this applies only to products developed and manufactured in the US. In other words, since Kirtsaeng’s books were printed and bound in Asia, they are not covered under the First Sale Doctrine.

As writers, we use a lot of technology from overseas, computers, software, tablets; we use books, all sorts of things in pursuit of the perfect metaphor. It could mean hanging onto old technology or outdated software out of fear of paying royalties for selling the old stuff on eBay; it could mean buying all American, but are there any computers actually manufactured here anymore? It could mean stiff price hikes as the manufactures “compromise” by front-loading the resale royalties into the original sale price. One thing is certain, anyone who uses technology will be paying much more if the Supreme Court upholds the Second Circuit’s ruling. Of course if they do, then it will be up to Congress to change the law to include foreign-made items in the Doctrine, but how long will that take, if it happens at all? Let’s not forget those pesky lobbyists and how money speaks louder than either morality or common sense.

So, while we are waiting, let’s play a game. I know that you are all creative souls, so think a moment and see if you can come up with some of the ludicrous effects a Supreme Court affirmation of the Second Circuit’s ruling would have. Come to think of it, leave your idea as a response and let’s see just how ridiculous this can get.

 

Out of the Shadows

OK, I admit it. I not on Team Edward. Come to think of it, the tortured vampire looking for immortal love tends to make me cringe. Sure, I make an exception for Barnabas Collins (the Jonathon Frid version, not the Johnny Depp version) because he brings so much more to the table with the ongoing masquerade and all the cat and mouse games. I also cut Barnabas some slack because, unlike the vapid, tortured things with their wide, wet eyes and emo poses that seem to dominate the popular media these days (and no, I am not talking about the democrats this election year), there is something about Barnabas that harkens back to the granddaddy of them all, Dracula.

The story of Dracula is one, not of love or sex though both are elements, but of invasion. What makes him worse than an invader from another country or culture is his outsideness. He is inhuman, an otherworldly predator that not only kills, but toys with, seduces, and converts his victims. There is no romance about it, it is domination and submission. Forget the Victorian lace, we’re talking black leather here; master and slave. Invasion, occupation, dominion. Those who willingly submit are no different from the Vichy French in World War II, except in their mode of collaboration.

In the series, Barnabas invades the world of Collinsport, takes territory, the Old House, and begins to work his influence, enslaving Willie Loomis and capturing Maggie Evans, trying to bend her mind to his own purposes; his ultimate goal to turn her into his lost Josette and make her an immortal vampire like himself. In the recent movie, Barnabas is rendered as a troubled antihero, whose devotion to his family must be balanced by the killings he commits to slack his thirst. Note, I do not refer to them as murders. As a vampire, the relationship Barnabas, or Dracula, have to their victims is the same one we human beings have to beef cattle. It may not be very flattering but it is the basis of much of the horror inspired by the vampire.

It is also the basis of much of his power. The terror of confronting the vampire is the terror of knowing that we cannot save ourselves, that we are totally under the otherworldly monster’s control and that our fate will be one of its choosing, one that serves its purpose alone. Anything less can be had for a fee from some professional dominatrix, or for free at a S&M club. This is not to say that the vampire must be a villain. The undead can be heroic, but they have to be who and what they are. Depp manages to bring that out of Barnabas Collins, which tells us it can be done. Come to think of it, there are plenty of monstrous heroes out there that are heroic and yet stay true to who and what they are. Marvel’s Incredible Hulk comes to mind, Gamera, the giant flying turtle from Japan likewise. Being a monster is not a choice. The choice is whether you use your monstrous powers for good or evil.

Which brings me back to Edward, and all of the others developed along those lines. What is the point? Where is the horror? Where is the feeling of touching something not of this world? It isn’t there, and maybe that is the point; the desire to make us understand the plight of the poor vampire, to give us a window into his tortured soul, to let us know that he really isn’t so bad, that he is, in fact, just like the rest of us. That turns the once noble bloodsucker into an emo poster child for moral relativism.

Rubbish. The vampire is a monster, and must always remain a monster, distinct and apart from humanity. Any attempt to bring him down to the level of humanity can only result in a tawdry caricature of his true nature.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Whenever we write to persuade, we usually like to cite evidence. In fact, anyone who has gone through an English Comp class will recall that their professor insisted upon it. In our deeply polarized society, there are many strident voices making arguments from both sides of the political divide, and most people rely on their preconceived notions and “guts” to determine which side is right. That means that both sides are essentially preaching to their respective choirs and to people too lazy to think about what they are hearing.

Take a good, long, hard look at this nation, the problems we face, the leadership we have, and tell me that this thoughtless attitude by the public, an attitude fostered by our media and the political class, has done us any good whatsoever. So take that look, I’ll wait…

Still waiting…

Stepped out to have a Coke…

Now I am back…

Nothing? Didn’t think so. Let’s face it, we cannot afford to be this lazy or ignorant any longer, we cannot take things at face value any longer. We have to begin to think for ourselves again. For example, let us take a look at the hot-button issue of gun control.

If you were confronted with a statistic that told you that in a given year, almost 100,000 people are shot or killed with a gun (www.bradycampaign.org), your visceral reaction as a typical human being would be something like “That is terrible! Something must be done!” No argument there, it is terrible, something must be done. That is the reaction that the Brady Campaign would like you to have. Then they would like you to give them money to support their anti-gun efforts. If we were talking about 100,000 innocent people, then Brady would have a good argument. The problem is that we are not talking about 100,000 innocents.

According to the FBI, which does like to break down the big numbers into demographic components, we learn that the vast (and by vast, I mean overwhelming) majority of these shootings are related to drug crimes and gang activity among young males. In other words, it is bad guys shooting other bad guys, or cops shooting bad guys. Are there tragic shootings that fall outside any youthful drug or gang activity? Absolutely. There are accidents, suicides, there are other crimes, but if the gang and drug crime are eliminated from the statistics, the remaining shootings barely amount to anything (Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs).

The problem is that both sides of this debate use the same statistics from the same sources and, depending on the emphasis they place on certain data, or fail to put onto other data, they can make the statistic demonstrate anything they want, whatever happens to coincide with their own position.

Mark Twain was right. When it comes to deceit, there indeed lies, damned lies, and statistics. If you rely on those—any of those—then you are lost. There is, however, a solution.

Do the unthinkable: Open your own eyes and look for yourself.

If you want to know which candidate has a better plan for your life, forget what they are saying to explain your current situation and use your own common sense. You pay too much for gasoline, so ask yourself what would most easily and simply lower those costs? Here is a hint, oil is a commodity, so the more there is, the less it costs. You want to know whether or not private gun ownership is a good idea or not, then look at places (stick to Western cultures where the issues are similar to your own unless you enjoy comparing apples to oranges) where guns are banned and see what happened. Great Britain and Australia come to mind at once, and both saw violent crime—rape, armed robbery, home invasion, etc.—rise dramatically.

Sure, it is all anecdotal, but it does get you thinking, it does make you question, and this day and age, those are two very good things to do!

Let me know what you think.