Rilaly's Blog
Simple Truths

Archive for the ‘Social Issues’ Category

You say what I think, not what you may randomly do

May 22, 2012

Some of the times our world is random, but the random is impossible to grasp.  There are patterns out there, everywhere, just waiting to be discovered.  The universe is built on mathematical equations.  Our political systems can all make sense if we take away the random and begin to categorize and organize the thoughts of each [...]

He used to have a Mohawk

May 12, 2012

“He was a good man,” the best man said. “He used to have a Mohawk.”

This sentiment was echoed by the maid of honor, “I like Mark. I think he’s a nice guy. I found out he used to have a Mohawk, and it used to be blue. I couldn’t believe it.”

There is something wrong with a guy who used to have a Mohawk, but I know him, and he’s nice. It used to be a blue Mohawk, but he’ll talk to you just like any other feller. And it used to be spikey, but once you get to know him you’ll see how nice he is. He used to have a Mohawk, and he used to have some serious, psychological issues.

If he used to have a Mohawk, he used to have identity issues. He used to be the type of guy no one would take seriously. He probably used to punch people, and he probably had to have a fiery temper that you didn’t want to mess with, but even that probably failed to get him the attention he needed. He could probably be in a sparsely populated room, and you still didn’t know he was there. When he used to have a Mohawk that probably all changed.

He used to spend hours in front of a mirror, gelling the hair up and spiking it, so someone would look at him. They might think him strange. He might even be an outcast in some social settings, but at least someone, somewhere would look at him. At least someone, somewhere gave him a reaction. “For God’s sakes, Helen, the boy’s got a blue Mohawk!” He probably got aroused by all that.

“It turns out the guy has a great heart, and he’d” –sing it with me here folks–“give you the shirt off his back.” That was the best-man again. The best man said he “was attracted to Mark, because Mark used to have a Mohawk.” The best man said: “It wasn’t one of those flat, more acceptable Mohawks. This one was spiky, and high. It was even blue at one point. It was a Mohawk!” The best man placed pronounced emphasis on the words ‘was’ and ‘Mohawk’ for the purpose of selling the joke. Laughter made its way around the room. It was polite laughter, and there was nothing raucous about it. All the shock value was gone. The Mohawk was gone. Mark just sat there nodding, soaking in the silence of the moment. His nodding had a ‘yep!’ to it that either regretted losing the Mohawk or trying it out. My money is on the former.

The Normalcy Bias

May 3, 2012

Everybody’s favorite clown Dougie ventures out a little too far in the swamp. “Didn’t you hear the Native American woman say there’s a monster in the lake?” one of the great looking people on shore screams. Dougie doesn’t know the golden rule of modern day cinema: Always listen to Native Americans, especially if they speak in hallowed tones. “You’ve gone too far Dougie!” all the great looking people on shore begin screaming. “Come back!”

“C’mon ya chickens!” Dougie says backstroking leisurely. “It’s fun. There’s nothing out here!”

At this point, we hear the music that spells out the impending doom, and then we hear a subtle roar. We tense up, we’re mentally screaming at Dougie to get out of the water. The great looking people on shore are in hysterics now screaming that they see swirling waters. “Dougie please!

“Ah, shut up!” everybody’s favorite clown Dougie says waving off their warnings. The trouble is the actor who plays Dougie is slightly unattractive and out of shape. Those of us who have watched movies for decades know he’s in trouble.

The monster roars up to an impossible height. Dougie looks up at it, and he begins screaming. The monster takes its time, so we can see the full breadth of its horror. It gnashes its teeth a little, it swivels its head about, and it looks menacingly at Dougie. Dougie continues to look up, and he continues to scream, as the monster lowers onto him and bites his head off. The fact that this scene took a whole fifteen seconds causes those of us who have watched too many horror movies to squirm.

Why didn’t he just move, is a question I’ve asked for decades. Why did he sit there and scream for fifteen seconds? I could live with the fact that the monster would’ve moved through the water quicker than Dougie, had Dougie attempted to swim away. It’s more acquatic than Dougie. I could’ve also live with the fact that Dougie probably didn’t have much of a chance the minute he jumped into the water, but as an audience member who gets titillated by horror, I would like to see the horror movie victims do a little more to survive.

When I found out that actors have to “hit their mark” and stay on it, I was a little less disgusted with the actors who played Dougie types. I still wanted them to move, but I realized that they were instructed by the director to stay on the spot he designated as the perfect spot for the angle he wanted on the decapitation scene. The cliché scene may strike horror in some, but I would venture to say that those people are usually under thirty. For the rest of us, it’s just plain irrational that a person wouldn’t move, or do anything and everything they can, for their own survival.

Author Douglas McRaney argues that not only are Dougie’s reactions rational, but they are actually closer to the truth than anything I call for. The book McRaney wrote is called “You Are Not so Smart”, and it says that the only aspect of such a scene that may be overdramatized is Dougie’s screaming.

Casual, non-psychology types believe that there are two basic reactions humans will have in the face of catastrophic, chaotic moments: action and non-action. There are those who act, in other words, and those who choke. Those who act may also be broken down into two categories: those who act to selfishly save themselves, and those who act in a heroic fashion to save others, but there are still only two basic reactions that casual, non-psychology types list.

McRaney argues that there is a third course of action, and it is the course that most of us are likely to follow in unprecedented moments of chaos and horror. It is called fear bradycardia. Fear bradycardia is the idea that a person simply stops moving and hopes for the best. It is, argues McRaney, an automatic and involuntary instinct in all of us. Fear bradycardia is also referred to as tonic immobility, but no matter what it’s called it falls under the umbrella of normalcy bias.

Social responsibility versus government responsibility

May 2, 2012

There is a growing sense among liberals, and even some Republicans, that we can no longer control government spending. The last two administrations have raised the base spending levels so high that we simply can’t return to even 2004 levels. If that’s the case, say current politicians, we must widen our scope to the outliers that affect the deficit. We must increase revenue to the government, and those who do not oblige, such as Apple computers, must be held to account. If it’s the case, we must go after the rich, the somewhat-rich, the super-rich, and the mega-rich. We must also go after corporations, and anyone and everyone (who is not in government) that has caused this debt. We’ve reached a point of no return with those living off the largesse of the American tax payer to turn around now and say that we need to cut their benefits. There are just too many dependent people now. It wouldn’t be politically smart to tell them that the gravy train, the free ride must come to an end.

In a piece sympathetic to Obama’s cause, the NY Times details that: “The White House estimates that Mr. Obama’s plan (to raise taxes on the rich) would raise $866 billion over the next decade, or nearly half of that.”**

So, if our current deficit (spending over revenue) for the current year is 1.326 trillion, then even by sympathetic estimates, the Obama plan would only lower the current deficit to 1.240 trillion. As Obama has said, “It would be a good start.” Fair enough, but what would it be starting?

Due to the fact that no Obama budget plan, thus far, has contained any serious attempts at cutting spending, he can’t even get Democrat support for them. Due to the fact that Congressman Paul Ryan has made some minor attempts at cutting spending, attempts that occur over a ten-year period, he has been demonized. Due to the fact that Republicans held out for spending cuts in last year’s Budget Battle, they were demonized and trashed by Obama and his acolytes in the media. Republicans caved on their modest proposals and basically gained nothing for their part in the battle. Obama has shown that he’s not really about starting something. He would rather focus the entirety of his battle on the politically expedient battle of “tax the rich” to the tune of $86 billion a year in deficit recovering revenue…or nearly half of that.

Arbitrary ideas

May 1, 2012

How Obama could get re-elected. I had an idea how Obama could win the election the other day, and it seemed so easy that I almost didn’t want to voice it, but I knew no one would do it, and I know that no one reads my blogs anyway. The idea is based on the argument that Republicans are currently making that Obama will do anything and say anything to win this upcoming election. Republicans argue that he doesn’t have a record to run on, so we may see a whole lot of desperation on his part to get you to believe anything and everything about him. They also say that Obama will do and anything and everything he can think of to get you to think less of his presumed opponent Mitt Romney. If the former point is true, and Obama does reach a point of desperation, he may want to consider having George W. Bush christen the new Trade Center.

President Obama would, of course, be the first choice to christen this building once it’s completed. Obama could let it be known that he would be honored to christen this building, and he could talk about the glory of the new building, and the symbol of regrowth, and how he chose to see this as a symbol of what he wants to do for the country between 2012 and 2016. He could milk it for weeks, holding press conferences and on site speeches. Then, at the last second, say with one week to go before the christening, he could say, “I have decided to select an honoree to stand in my place. I have selected George W. Bush, for I believe that no man has done more to thwart terrorism in the past decade. While I may not agree with some of the tactics his administration employed in fighting terrorism, now is not a time for such bickering. It is a time to commemorate what I believe is an historic achievement worthy of honor. Let The New Trade Center be the symbol for our new era, and let George W. Bush be the man to symbolically lead us into that era.”

Now I know what you’re thinking, Obama would never do this, no politician would. Imagine if he did though. I’m sure Obama would use different words, and he wouldn’t be so effusive with his praise for the former president of another party, but if Obama and his speechwriters could somehow construct language that kept his arguments against the Bush administration in place while allowing the former president to christen the new Trade Center, I think Obama would be almost unbeatable in the 2012 election.

Imagine how difficult it would be for Republicans to pin their narratives on him from that point forward. Imagine the ads. “Everything they told you about this man is wrong. He is a generous man, a good man, a man that promised you he would not be a blue-state president, or a red-state, but he would be a president for the people.” Imagine the swing voters saying, in their exit poll interviews, “He and I (Obama) don’t see eye to eye on a lot of issues, but after that thing he did for Bush at the Trade Center, I got the idea that he was a good man, and I started to think that a lot of his detractors were lying about him.”

If Obama is going to get desperate, and his opponents think he might if his poll numbers don’t improve, think about what a home run this could be. He would be seen in the same light as Reagan on this one issue, in that Reagan invited Carter to welcome the Iranian Hostages home, even though Reagan was in office when it happened. Obama might trouble his base a little with such a move, but who is his base going to vote for if not Obama? It will never happen of course, but it could be his Sister Souljah moment if he did it right.

The Healthy Nature of Illusions and Delusions

April 21, 2012

An article in Psychology Today smacks in the face my beliefs about the the illusions and delusions we have about the power and control of our daily lives. According to this article it’s not only okay to be delusional in this aspect, it’s actually quite healthy.

We all have limitations in our lives, and we all have a boss. Even those who claim to have no superiors are accountability to people. CEOs have a board of trustees and shareholders to answer to for their actions. Politicians have voters that they’re supposed to be answerable to (another argument). To those of us much lower on the totem pole, there has always been such frustration. We know that we’re nobodies, with no power, but we have always felt like it’s healthier to recognize this and analyze it for what it is. The Psychology Today writer Merel van Beeren says, for most, the opposite is true.

“People overestimate their agency, but it’s for the best—those with an accurate sense of their own influence are often depressed. Participation in lotteries goes up when players can choose their own numbers, even though they are no more likely to win.”*

Why Republicans resent Hollywood

April 19, 2012

Many of my friends say that a Hollywood star could never influence them in choosing a political candidate seeking office. The implicit idea behind such a statement is that due to the fact that a Hollywood star couldn’t influence them to change their vote, a Hollywood star cannot influence anyone’s vote.

As Gareth Ireland, of Thecheers.org website, says: “If celebrities can dictate how we look, dress, and act they can surely dictate who the younger American voter should vote for.”*

Younger people, as we all know, are insecure and unsure individuals. They are far more prone to peer pressure and bullying than older people are. This is especially the case when the young person knows nothing about a given topic. Young people do not usually have the patience to learn the intricacies of a given topic, so when a person that they deem a cool guy comes along and “informs” them about politics, they’re easily swayed. Studies have shown that young people are not as influenced by their parents thinking as they used to be.** They are more prone to think that their parents are dorks, their teachers are Nazis, and nobody listens to their grandparents anymore. Actors and rock stars are cool though. They have a way of putting things that really makes a young person “think”. Actors and rock stars use words like amazing and unfathomable, and young people rush out to voting booths to vote in the manner they dictate.

Obama attempts to rebalance the balance of powers

April 5, 2012

For years now, conservative radio and television commentators have made jokes about President Barack Obama being “the anointed one”. They have called him “the chosen one,” the “one that we’ve been waiting for,” and the many other nicknames that Obama and his followers have affixed upon the head of their favorite leader. These commentators have made these jokes based upon Obama’s belief in himself and his policies. The jokes are also based upon the titles the fainting, fawning fans have applied to Obama to add to his leadership mystique. Jokes of this nature are not usually funny if they don’t have a grain of truth to them. On Monday, 4/2/12, Obama added another grain to the truth to their truth.

Throughout George W. Bush’s tenure as president, liberals bemoaned the tyrannical nature in which the man tried to get things done. They claimed that Bush’s attempts to bypass Congress, through excessive use of the Executive Order privilege, brought the nation to the brink of totalitarianism. If we break these two presidential tenures down into months, however, we find that Obama is quite competitive to W. Bush administration in the average number of Executive Orders given per month. Bush was in office for ninety-six months, and he issued 291 Executive Orders. That gives us an average of roughly three Executive Orders per month. Obama has been in office for thirty-nine months, as of this post, and he has issued 115 Executive Orders. This gives him an average of roughly 2.9 Executive Orders issued a month.*

Another claim to bolster the liberal argument that Bush was bordering on the tyrannical was that Bush quadrupled the number of appointees put in positions of leadership without being confirmed in anyway by the Senate. (The media tabbed these unconfirmed appointees Czars while Richard Nixon was in office.) One look at the numbers bolsters this liberal claim. When President Bill Clinton left office, he had seven. There were twenty-eight Czars when Bush left office. That’s exactly four times as many Czars as Clinton had. If this is one of the definitions liberals have to support their claim that Bush was tyrannical, however, what does it mean to them that Obama now has thirty-three Czars?**

Obamacare and medical technology

March 28, 2012

By all accounts Obamacare is in its infancy stage at this point, and we’re already seeing massive transformations in our country. Private insurance companies are raising their prices, doctors are saying that they’ll leave their profession if it’s implemented, and medical device manufacturers are raising prices and laying off employees. It’s only in its infancy.

At this point, March 28, 2012, the question of the Constitutionality of the Obamacare law is before the Supreme Court in the form of oral arguments, and no one knows how the five non-liberal jurists will vote. Some have suggested that the votes of Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. are a fait accompli, and others have stated that Antonin Scalia and John Roberts past history dictates the manner in which they may vote, so that leaves one man to decide the future of our country: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

If one were to tell The Founding Fathers that a piece of legislation that would transform this country in innumerable ways rests in the hands of one man, would they see this as a natural course of events, or would they roll over in their graves in shame? Would they say, for example, that if wasn’t a Supreme Court Justice, it might be a Senator being counted on for a sixtieth vote, or a president signing or vetoing a law? No matter who it is, they might say, most laws will come down to one man’s vote. We did our best to prevent it, with the separation of powers, but it’s impossible to stop in total.

A review of HBO’s movie Game Change

March 14, 2012

This movie is largely taken from the perspective of McCain campaign’s senior advisor Steve Schmidt. The movie correctly details the fact that Schmidt took over a floundering presidential campaign three months before the election. Desperate for a game changer, in this malaise, Schmidt and company convince Candidate John McCain to nominate Sarah Palin as his vice-president. Although Palin provided the McCain campaign a much needed boost, Schmidt decided to say that the campaign’s decision to bring her on was the decision that brought down the entire campaign. Even though, thanks in part to Palin, the campaign was even with candidate Obama prior to the 9/08 financial crisis.

To be fair to the movie creators, there is a brief mention of the financial crisis and George W. Bush’s handling of it, in the waning moments of the movie. There is a follow up statement that suggests that the oncoming loss wasn’t as a result of nominating Sarah Palin, but I’ll bet you didn’t catch it. I barely did. It was said as a throwaway line in the agonizing scenes of the movie that precede the election.

Aside from that throwaway line, the portion of the book Game Change that HBO, and the movie’s creators, chose to concentrate on (the Republicans look bad portion) is basically one long attempt by Schmidt and the team of advisors to deflect blame for the loss of the 2008 presidential election. Anytime a campaign for president of the U.S. fails in such a manner, there is a mad rush by those involved to cast blame on anyone and everyone else in the campaign for the decisions that were made. They do this, if they ever want to work in another presidential election again. It was just Schmidt and company’s good fortune that they happened to cast that blame on someone that the makers of this movie, HBO, and the mainstream media were dying to dethrone.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.