A Political Flashback Friday Post

       This presidential election is nearing an end and most of us are more than ready for that.  Except there's one more problem to consider:   Now we have to deal with whoever is elected and whatever repercussions come along with that.  The real craziness might just be beginning with the election results.  It can be interesting to look back to see what sentiments were in previous elections so I've dug back into the archives to revisit a post I did after the last election in 2012.   Was I right then?  Or will this election surprise us bigly?  Read on and share your thoughts if you are willing to do so...

     Flashback Friday, introduced by Michael G. D’Agostino of A Life Examined is a monthly blogfest, occurring on the last Friday. Michael’s directive: “Republish an old post of yours that maybe didn’t get enough attention, or that you’re really proud of, or you think is still relevant etc.” Please add your link to the list at the end of the post if you’d like to join in.

        THE POST I'VE CHOSEN FOR THIS MONTH FIRST APPEARED ON TOSSING IT OUT ON Friday November 9, 2012--a few days after the presidential election of that year. . TO SEE THE ORIGINAL COMMENTS TO THAT POST YOU CAN CLICK ON THE TITLE BELOW TO BE TAKEN TO THE ORIGINAL POST...

Why We May Never See Another Republican President

 The Barnum & Bailey greatest show on Earth, the world's largest, grandest, best amusement institution. General view of the twelve colossal water proof canvas pavilions, ... (Photo credit:Wikipedia)

          I didn't want to do this post.  I told myself I would not, but here I am doing it anyway.  I guess I just can't keep my big mouth shut.   I'm sorry if I'm turning anyone off by posting this.  If you click away from this post I'll understand--not completely, but I do understand that some readers don't want to deal with topics like this.  Besides, I'm asking you to think and God forbid that anyone hurt themselves by thinking too much.

          Don't let me lead anyone to believe that I think I know much about any of this topic of politics.  Like many of you I'm just an observer of this whole mess with no direct personal investment in the process.  I listened to what the media and the candidates had to say and then I voted.   This post is only a matter of my interpretation of what has transpired in the 2012 U.S. elections and what I think it could mean for the future of  this country.   I hope you will read this, consider what I have said, and give us your thoughts.   I hope we can start a dialogue and come to some rational conclusions.

          The way I see it the Democratic Party of today is quite a bit different than what it was 50 years ago or so.  Not that I've paid that much attention over the years, but I think the Democrats of yesteryear might be a bit confused if they were to suddenly appear on today's scene.   There have been big changes in the Dems whereas the Republicans have held a steady mostly focused course since the mid-1800's--Grand Old Party is a fitting title indeed.

          Along about the 1970's the Democrats opened a Pandora's Box and started unleashing a whole hodgepodge of issues.  It's been a process that has continued until this day.  But let me stop and back off of this analogy.   After all I'm no big fan of Greek mythology and Greece is no model to emulate seeing as how they have all of the problems they've been having.  Instead let me return to my favorite analogy, one that is in a more capitalistic vein--the circus.

           Ah yes, the political parties and the elections are like circuses.  Just as in the real world of circuses there are many different circuses.  For now the main circuses of influence that we will concern ourselves with are the Democrats and the Republicans.   And it's starting to look like the Democrats are the greatest show on Earth to borrow the slogan from Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey, the great American conglomeration of circusdom.    The Democrats are poised to become the constant winners in all future U.S. Presidential elections.

           Why do I say this?  The Democrats have a bigger tent.

           The Republicans might be likened to something more of an old-timey mudshow traversing the countryside playing to the crowds who are looking for more traditional fare.   They pitch a tiny tent and put on their show with a few clowns, some standard political circus performers all performing variations of the same act, and one old tired elephant.  The crowd mostly knows what to expect throughout the performance because there is a predictability and an agreed upon standard of values.  The audience consists primarily of hard-working Americans who value independence and would prefer the government to stay out of their business as much as possible.

            The Democrats on the other hand pitch a gigantic tent amidst a massive midway.  A pompous parade lures their crowds to the celebratory grounds where hot dogs and cotton candy are doled out freely before the big show begins.  And that show!   What a show it is.   Three rings of dazzling displays with action at the tent top and everywhere you look.  Everyone is excited with so much going on--so much that no one can take it all in.   The audience members keep their eyes on their favorite acts and miss most of the others.  The important thing here is that everyone goes away happy because they all got want they wanted.  It makes no difference that they didn't see everything in the show.  They saw what they came to see and that's what matters to them.

           So what am I getting at?   You tell me.  It's my circus metaphor and I think it makes sense, but then again I wrote it.  If I started dissecting this and started getting down to specifics then I might offend somebody.  I might make someone mad.  I might lose another reader.  If I started getting too open and honest then I might start sounding like a Republican--or at least what an unafraid Republican should sound like.  But let's face it--honesty and forthrightness can be risky business in our society.

           What does the Republican Party need to do to win another U.S. presidential election barring any major missteps on the Democrat side?   Do they need a bigger tent?   I think that would just make them Democrats.   I'd say they need to find more ways to cram more people into that little tent.  Republicans will need more numbers to win the next presidential race, but I don't think they need a bigger tent to do that.  However if the Republicans don't find a way to outsmart the big tent circus party then we may never see another Republican president.

        Do you think the Republican tent is bigger this election?    Is the message of the Democrats truly resonating with people or will most who vote Democrat do so based on habit and tradition?   What do you dislike most about presidential elections?

         Next Tuesday November 1st!!!!   A Battle of the Bands that might predict the winner of the election.   Or maybe not.  Whatever the case I hope you'll come and play along.   I think it will be fun and I hope you'll find this Battle interesting. 

Related articles

• Jersey City circus ban given final OK
• Philly Style
• Restaurants display political signs; does it affect business?
• Political Atheism Within The GOP

How Big Is Your Ego?

 Then President of the United States of America, George W. Bush invited then President-Elect Barack Obama and former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter for a Meeting and Lunch at The White House. Photo taken Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009 in the Oval Office at The White House. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

       Summer's ego is flaring with a vengeance in the southwestern U.S.   Predictions are that we in Los Angeles will be seeing unusually high temperatures for the next ten days or so.   Forecasters are saying that places like Las Vegas and Phoenix will be seeing temps in the 120 degree range.  Not especially unique for those folks who live there, but damn hot any way you look at it.  And summer of 2016 has barely begun.  What does this bode for the upcoming months?

        One thing we in the U.S. are facing is a heated political climate with an idiosyncratic presidential race ahead of us.  The primaries were kindergarten stuff compared to what we might be seeing in the months ahead of us.  Divisiveness of the parties and the nation as a whole may set tempers flaring and nasty words flying.

        Plenty is said about the over-inflated ego of Donald Trump.  No denying that the guy has a super big ego.  What public figure doesn't?   Bill and Hillary Clinton both have such humongous egos that one can only wonder how they can stand each other's company.  The ego of Barack Obama shows an air of superiority that gives him a sense that he's talking down at us or lecturing us. Even the good out boy presidents like George W. Bush or Jimmy Carter are driven by ego otherwise they would have never made it as far as they did.

        An egoistic Fidel Castro fueled a revolution to overthrow one dictator's grandiosity to replace it with his own bloated self-image that expected total allegiance or else from the citizens of his nation.  Recently, the passing of Muhammad Ali reminded us of the swaggering young Cassius Clay who pronounced "I am the greatest" and charmed much of the public with his egotistical antics. By no means was I a fan of Ali, but I will admit I was amused by his early escapades before he changed his name and became what some feel was a traitor to his country.

       We are entitled to our opinions just as we have a right to brand ourselves in whatever way we wish.  Criticism can be expected when we put ourselves in the public eye, but when we attack another we are attacking ego and that is like going for the throat.  Backlash can be expected from some while hurt might be the outcome for others.   Even those with the most fragile egos will usually make some attempt to defend their pride, their image, and their sense of self-worth.   My opinions reflect my own ego and when someone attacks my opinion, they are attacking a certain part of who I am.

        Openness to discussing differences is a good thing as is amicable debate concerning why one party believes what they think is right.   If we are open to listening to each other rather than jumping to the conclusion that we have the right answer and nobody can come up with a reasonable counter argument, we might end up learning more about others as well as ourselves.  There are some points, especially those dealing with preference, where there is no right or wrong, but merely a difference of opinion.   If I were dictator of the world, it might be assuaging to my ego for a while, but eventually that world would likely get pretty boring if everyone else were forced to share every opinion that I have.

        This will be the last post in my "Love and Ego" series in the official sense, though this blog will always be some reflection of my own ego and a study of ego in general.  And love will always make appearances here, especially in the many more songs of love that I have in waiting for future Battle of the Bands blog posts.

         Love and ego are ever present with all of us.  Just as the heat that scorches us here in Los Angeles affects the moods and attitudes of those of us who have to deal with feeling the burn (I'm talking climate here), love and ego will shape the directions we take in our lives and influence the way we treat others.

         Between love and ego, do you think one force tends to overpower the other or do you feel there is a parity between the two?    Do you feel that your ego is strong or do you tend be a relatively acquiescent person?     Can you think of any politician without a strong ego?  If so, explain why you think this.

Related articles

• Jimmy Carter: GOP Opposition To Obama Has A "Heavy Racial Overtone," Trump Has "Tapped A Waiting Reservoir Of Inherent Racism"...
• Never underestimate the Democrats' ability to blow a presidential race
• What Do Women Want? Hillary Clinton, Not So Much.
• Why Democrats Have Popular Presidents and Republicans Don't

A Result Is Gonna Come

What Did He Say?

      Crazy stuff about Pope Francis casting judgment upon Donald Trump's being a Christian.  Or did the Pope really say what the news media said he did?  If the Pope truly made a direct declaration such as this then he is wrong.  After all he is not God and only God can read what is in the hearts of any of us.
 
       The problem is that media often twists and mangles what public figures say in order to create the news rather than report it. Perhaps in the days to come we'll get this controversy unraveled with the media clarifying what really happened.  Or maybe not.   Whatever we get from the media sources or the Pope himself might result in greater understanding of the truth, but I doubt it.  As is often the case, seeds of discord and distrust have been planted in our minds where they will flourish into bigger confusions or wither away covered by way too much fertilizer.

        In the meantime, some of us may be wondering why the Vatican is surrounded by walls and protected by armed guards?  And how many Muslim refugees have they allowed to come in to stay in the hallowed halls of the papal seat of government?

The Next Round in the Primaries

        Something is going to happen on Saturday that could bring us closer to projecting where the presidential primaries are heading.  Things have been getting out of hand for the Republicans in South Carolina though some say this is just business as usual.   Maybe so if the business is monkey business.

          I'll admit it can get entertaining at times watching the antics of the candidates and listening to all of the nonsensical back and forth nasty politics.  I'm sure that the Democrats are going to have some rich material for their future political ads when it just comes down to the two main party candidates and they'll be letting the Republicans do all the mean talk for them.

          However it might be that the most interesting event on Saturday will be the Democrat caucus in Nevada.  Bernie Sanders is gaining ground on Hillary and she might be getting nervous.  She's even taken to barking like a dog.


     
       In fact, according to Fox News:   Sen. Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton nationally for the first time in the Democratic presidential primary race-- by three points-- in the latest Fox News Poll, which also shows Donald Trump leading his closest rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, by a 36-19 percent margin among self-identified Republican primary voters. 

         I'm thinking that the old-school establishment politicians might all be in the doghouse together after this year's election.  A lot of people are not very happy with those who have been running things  in our country and maybe this year will be a huge turning point where we will see the result of too many years of mismanagement in the United States government.  The world just keeps getting weirder.


What about Battle of the Band Results?

        The results of my most recent Battle of the Bands contest will be coming on Monday February 22nd.   You've still got time to go back and cast your vote for your favorite version of the song I used this time, "A Change Is Gonna Come".   I'll be tallying the votes on Sunday afternoon so if you'd like to vote this click this link.  

          Are you keeping up with the political shenanigans?   What do you think about the comments made by Pope Francis?   What breed of dog do you think Hillary was impersonating?  

Related articles

• Donald Trump vs. The Pope -- Do the Vatican Walls Get the Pass?
• Democrat Logic: It's Not "Illegal" to Be An Illegal Immigrant... America Must WAKE UP
• Lindsey Graham Asks Audience, 'How Many Of You Are Democrats?'... WATCH What JEB Does!
• Healthcare Right Or Entitlement

8 Types of Disagreement That Can Fuel Controversy

Map of the Square and Stationary Earth, by Orlando Ferguson (1893) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

           Before I delve into any individual controversies as outlined in my previous post, I want to spend a few posts setting the parameters that define disagreement and controversy as I see them.   Since I am not an expert in this study anyone is welcomed to correct me, dispute what I say, or express any opinion that differs from mine.  After all, that's part of my objective in presenting the topics I will be offering in upcoming posts--for me to toss out my ideas to you and for you to provide some feedback, whether it be agreeing or disagreeing.  Hopefully we can learn something and have some fun doing  it.

Types of Disagreement

         This is something that could be looked at in many ways and perhaps you'll have your own breakdown in the comment section.   Here are some primary approaches to disagreement as I would describe them and examples to illustrate them (For each disagreement type I will use the generally debunked theory that the Earth is flat):

Fact based --- Sometimes scientific or historic in nature, but strictly based on proven observations and irrefutable statistics.  On my next post I will discuss this type of disagreement in greater depth.

Example:  The preponderance of evidence would tell most reasonable people that the Earth is round, but there are some who might argue otherwise, using actual facts to defend their side of the argument.

Fantasy based -- Nonfactual "proofs" may be intentionally fabricated in order to defend an argument; they could be the result of misinterpretation of existing data; or any other offering of evidence that often can sound completely credible but is untrue.   If unchallenged, an argument based on fantasy can win against facts that sound questionable or undesirable.  The arguer resorting to this tactic may not even realize the proof is fantasy, but when they are aware that their proof is not true then they are lying

Example:  If a Flat Earther presents anecdotal evidence of an explorer who actually has seen the edge of the flat Earth and offers authentic looking documentation that seems to be true, the non-discerning believer could be fooled into believing the story, and, in fact, the presenter might actually believe the evidence being presented.

Pick and choose blend --This is commonly used in political arguments or in other cases where so-called life stories might be presented.  The convenient truths will provide a foundation to make the contrived additions of evidence fit the structure of the argument.  This approach might also be used when the arguer has hard factual data, but made-up facts are added into the mix because that arguer is relying on memory, hearsay, or commonly accepted fallacies.

Example:    The Flat Earther might use actual mathematical calculations and scientific observations to give their argument the heft of credibility and substance and then add false evidence that would be difficult to use as proof when presented on its own.

Outside influenced --This can be what a friend or someone else who is trusted has said.  It can be the perception within a community, group, or organization.  Many outside sources including media, books, and internet can present things as fact thereby leading many to believe them to be true whether or not they are actually true.

Example:   "My best friend, who is an honor student and a science major working on his PhD, told me the Earth is flat and because it came from him, I believe him."  Or, "I read it on the internet."

Tradition based --A belief that is part of the culture or social group that has always been accepted as true and continued to be presented as true by generations that follow.

Example:   If a tribal community living on an island in the Pacific had always held the belief that the Earth is flat and it was a part of their legends, art, songs, and everything that had been passed generationally, then they would be subscribing to a tradition based belief system if this is what was used to argue the point with one who suggested the Earth is round.

Faith based-- This would primarily relate to scriptural references and their interpretations.  A religious institution or group might even use a proof as part of their doctrine and credo. This type of argument is rarely effective among non-believers or those of a different belief system.

Example:  Both sides of the Flat Earth argument can offer Bible scripture that appears to support either argument.  Some will argue that a number of verses state that there are "four corners of the Earth" or "ends of the Earth".  There are also verses that describe the Earth as a circle or an orb.   Similar references can be found in the scriptures of other religions.

Educated manipulation -- Many accusations have been directed toward educational institutions for disseminating bias, untruth, or convenient fact-bending.  This can be the result of faulty textbooks, poorly designed curricula, or teachers on a mission to shape the minds of their students.  Certain college professors have particularly been singled out as having some special agenda that they are trying to promote.

Example:   The science teacher or professor who is teaching that the Earth is flat (let's hope this isn't happening anywhere!) and shaping the belief systems of their students.

Politically affiliated-- This is especially relevant at this time of year.  Adherents of a party line are often persuaded about what to believe because this is the party platform.   Committees and others probably have devised this platform using one or more of the previous methods, but in many cases a party follower believes what the party believes and does not question anything beyond that.

Example:  Let's say that a government party takes hold in a less sophisticated part of the world and after taking power effectively convinces that populace that the Earth is flat.  All travel is banned due to the danger involved.  Those who dispute the new policy are killed or imprisoned.  After a while there is general acceptance that the Earth is flat and the population is under that absolute control of the government.  After all, some governments strive for complete control.  Isolating the people can work.   The Flat Earth is now true because the government says it is.

Some Final Words

            As you might have noticed, there are a number of ways these points can cross over and interconnect. This breakdown I hope provides a starting point which you can use to examine your own personal views about various issues and those of other people.  Once you have determined where your belief is coming from it will give you a better opportunity to clean up the weak points of your argument and look for ways to discredit your opponent's views.  Or it might make you realize your beliefs are incorrect.

           At this time of the year especially many facts and fallacies will be bantered about from many quarters.  It's a good idea to be informed in order to have a better idea of what the real truth is--especially for those who are planning to vote in the upcoming U.S. elections or elections in other parts of the world.  Also, big issues loom on many horizons throughout the world.   To be informed helps put all of these things in better perspective.

            And what I'm discussing in these introductory posts doesn't only apply to big issues of nations and the world.  Clear rational thinking is important in solving interpersonal conflict, making good choices in ones own life, and even making wise decisions in personal business such as finding employment, deciding on a educational path, or buying a product you've seen advertised.  Controversy involves deciding and decision making is something we all do on a daily basis.

            I hope this hasn't been overly dry or obvious.   If we are going to debate--if we can call it that--we want to establish ground rules to make the experience more fruitful and enjoyable for all of us.  Please give me your feedback in the comments and come back on Wednesday for "The Truth".

           Does the above outline seem right to you?     Would you add anything else to this list?    Do you have a different approach as to what constitutes the roots of disagreement?    Which of these approaches do you find yourself using most often?    Which approach do you dislike the most?

Related articles

• How to Argue Better: Recognizing the 12 Most Common Logical Fallacies
• The "Agree to Disagree" Principle - A Positive or Excuse?
• Is the Earth Flat?