Category: Politics

Politics and Politicians
Part One

When The Owl was in college, there was a course called Logic. Here’s a compilation of descriptions of Logic that The Owl found on the internet:

“Logic is the study of argument. College logic is a contemporary name for Logic presented as a pedagogic subject, in a tradition that goes back two millennia. In Logic courses you learn how to formalize information and reason systematically to produce logical conclusions. Logic is one of the oldest intellectual disciplines in human history. It dates back to the times of Aristotle. It has been studied through the centuries. Logic shows how to reason systematically with information to produce all logical conclusions and only logical conclusions.”

Being a logical person, this subject appealed to The Owl. There was a book that was required reading for the course. At the beginning of the book, in the first chapter, there were “riddles” that were exercises in logical thinking. The very first riddle was similar to the below:

“You live in a country that has politicians and non-politicians. In this country, all politicians lie and all non-politicians tell the truth. You are walking down a road on your way to the Emerald City when you come to a fork in the road. One road emanating from the fork in the road goes to the Emerald City; the other goes to a country with crazed cannibals. At the fork there are two people: one is a politician and one is a non-politician. You don’t know which way to go. You can only ask one of the people which way to go. You don’t know which person is a politician and which one isn’t (i.e., you can’t reliably ask the non-politician). What question do you ask only one person that will tell you the right way to go regardless of which person you ask?” (Answer at the end of this post!)

Although this is a riddle in a Logic book, it is subliminally revealing about what people generally think of politicians. They always lie.

Unfortunately, what The Owl found out from personal experience over 50 years is, the Logic book is correct. No matter how honest you think a politician is, they all lie. The Owl came to the opinion that you should never trust a politician. They are pathological liars.

The Owl interfaced with politicians in four states in which The Owl has lived. The Owl personally caught politicians lying, although there was generally nothing you could do about it because, well, they are politicians and have more power and influence than you do.

There are plenty of examples you can find in the news. Presidents lie, Presidential candidates lie, Governors lie, Mayors lie. The politicians and government officials in Flint Michigan lied about the water.

It’s so pervasive regarding politicians lying  that it made the Logic book! How many times have you heard politicians who have been called out for something nefarious say that whatever it is never happened and then eventually confess that they did what they were accused of in the first place. Remember “I did not have sexual relations with that woman?” And the famous response “It depends on what the definition of is is” to weasel out of giving a truthful answer to a question.

The Owl is not implying with the above example that only Democrats lie. It’s just a famous example. How about Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew? Nixon should have gone to jail for lying and other nefarious acts and Spiro Agnew actually did, after lying a lot! The famous quote, “I am not a crook” by Richard Nixon was a total lie. He dodged jail due to an executive pardon by Gerald Ford. If you ever want to see how crappy the election and political process can get, Google the Wikipedia 1972 Presidential election and then Nixon’s presidency.

Democrats and Republicans and any other politicians would lie equally as much to save their positions. After all, being a politician is a lucrative profession. The Owl will get to that in later posts, but you probably know how already.

So, in The Owl’s opinion, this is the baseline that shapes the way our government operates. As long as you don’t actually violate a law or the constitution, you are allowed to lie. To get people to vote for you, as a politician, you lie. It’s euphemistically called “pandering”. To get your bill passed, you lie.

Emotion rules in politics

The second significant politician flaw is that politicians do not act on facts. It’s emotion and perception. And all politicians are swayed more by emotion and perception and they ignore the facts. (this is not discounting the power of money,  later on that).

The Owl has seen this in action personally on many occasions. Here’s a couple of stories:

The Owl was involved in assisting optometrists moving a bill through a state legislature that would allow optometrists (OD’s) to prescribe most types of eye-drops and eye ointments for patients with certain eye ailments. That state wasn’t the first state to implement such a law and there was a lot of data from other states with statistical analyses amassed by the optometrists that showed that passage of such a law created more access for patients with eye illnesses and there was no evidence that there was an increase in adverse events due to optometrists prescribing the subset of medicines that were in the bill (mainly eye infection treatments and glaucoma treatment). The Ophthalmologists (MD’s) felt that the OD’s were encroaching on their “turf” and allowing OD’s to prescribe would reduce their income. Of course, they never said that in public.

After the OD’s presented a series of graphs and statistical slides, the Ophthalmologists had two people testify that they had a bad eye outcome and had seen an OD first and then an Ophthalmostat. The Ophthalmologists, without presenting any evidence supporting their conclusion, stated that the outcome was bad because the OD saw the patient first, that if the patients had seen an Ophthalmologist first, the bad outcome would have been avoided. That was the sum total of their argument. No data that showed OD’s prescribing eye-drops statistically caused more adverse outcomes. No data proving the outcome would have been better if the persons they presented were seen only by Ophthalmologists.

The committee voted to deep-six the bill. Based solely on two emotional anecdotal stories that may have had the same outcome even if they only saw an Ophthalmologist.

Here’s another to prove the point.

The Owl is now in another state. There had been numerous times that a sports referee or umpire, serving especially amateur sports like YAFL, Little League, Youth Hockey, etc., was physically attacked by someone from the spectator stands, mostly parents of children playing in the game. A YAFL referee got a state legislator to write a bill that included stiffer penalties for attacking a referee or umpire. In order to get the bill passed the referee had to meet with state legislators and plead his case.

He met with one state senator whose vote was crucial. The senator was very sympathetic to the cause and told the referee he would certainly vote for the bill when the bill came up in session.

The referee attended the session when the bill came up for vote. It was a very close vote. When they got to the senator who had promised to vote for the bill, he voted against it!! The referee was furious and disappointed. The bill didn’t pass. He approached the senator later in the day and asked him why he changed his mind.

The senator said that another senator he did not like and who always had opposing views to his and usually voted opposite of the way he voted was ahead of him in the roll call for the vote and he voted for the bill. So, the senator who promised his vote to the referee said he couldn’t vote for the same thing that the other senator did, so he voted against the bill, even though, morally, he liked the bill. His vote was determined only by the fact that a senator he disliked voted for it!! He had to vote opposite that other guy!!

See what The Owl means? Totally emotional voting. Not to mention lying! The Owl could go on and on about this, but it would begin to get boring, It happens every day.

It’s all about them

As The Owl said before, he’s dined with and met with multiple politicians. What was initially a bit of surprise to The Owl was their attitude.

When you make an appointment to meet with a sitting politician, you have to define what you want to talk to them about. You are usually advocating for one of three things: 1) you want them to vote a certain way on a bill, or 2. You want them to sponsor a bill, 3. You want them to support something publicly (like the #MeToo movement).

Then you should (The Owl always did) send a packet of information well before your appointment so the politician and his/her staff/aides can review the information so the politician understands the issue for the meeting.

What The Owl found out is, all of that is a total waste of time.

When you get to the meeting, you usually have 15 minutes. You’re lucky if you have 30. The politician has not reviewed your information, nor an executive summary prepared by the staff/aides. You tell the politician why you are there, then spend the rest of the time responding to their fishing for compliments. They are basically expecting you to stroke their egos. The Owl has never been in a face to face meeting with a politician where The Owl and the politician actually talked about the issue for which the meeting was scheduled. It was all about the politician.

And they are not subtle about what they are looking for.

Lastly, if you aren’t forking over any money, it’s mainly a social event. They already know what they are going to do, your effort is generally worthless unless the politician sees something in it for them. Their aides may review your information, but they only relate something to the politician if they think there is some meaningful surprise information that the politician should know about. The meeting is mainly for show and ego stroking.

But, everybody meets with politicians anyway. Naïve people think it is valuable. Veteran people know it’s a crap shoot. The Owl always left these meetings shaking his head about the total lack of conversation about the position or the issue The Owl would be advocating for. Not a very satisfying encounter.

OK, that’s enough for this post. Now for the answer to the logic riddle:

The question to ask either person (since you don’t know which one is a politician and which one isn’t) is: Which way would the other person tell me to go if I asked them what was the wrong way to the Emerald City?

If you happened to ask the politician, they would tell you the right way because they always lie (the opposite of what the non-politician would say).

If you asked the non-politician, they will tell you the right way because they know the politician would tell you the opposite of the wrong way and they would truthfully tell you that.

So, from either person, the answer would be the right way. And off you go to see the Wizard of Oz!

Every two years major political elections occur in the United States. There are four-year terms for some elected offices like President and Governors, six year terms for Senators and two year terms for members of the House of Representatives. So, every two years we are bombarded with political ads from early in the year to the November election. Candidates present an “a chicken in every pot” message (literally, they are going to solve all of the problems citizens have expressed via polls) in their ads about themselves and PAC ads and candidates ads about their opponents depict candidates as unscrupulous, lying, corrupt, scheming corporate puppets (aptly named “attack ads”). Each candidate generates attack ads about their opponents. Interestingly, the attack ads are a more truthful depiction of politicians and their actions and preferences than the actual political candidates’ ads about themselves.

Lobbyists arrange for donations to candidates willing to promote their client’s agendas (essentially bribing them) to make them beholden to their clients (thus the corporate puppets). Lobbying is protected by the First Amendment through the right of free speech and the right to petition the government. I’m sure the founding fathers didn’t think that included giving politicians large sums of money, but, here we are…..

Since all politicians are essentially alike, voting for a person is pretty useless. You could have a monkey throw darts at the ballot and come out with the same result as if you actually chose the candidates to vote for yourself. Thus, The Owl’s invention of “Strategic Voting”.

Strategic voting should be practiced by Independent voters. According to a recent Gallop poll, 42% of Americans identify themselves as Independent, 29% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. People who identify with a political party have “drunk the Kool-Aid (laced with LSD)”. They and their party are generally delusional and, at times, even psychotic. People who identify with political parties live is a world of perception and illusion, not facts or reality.  They would never vote strategically because they are blinded by bias.

The US Founding Fathers set the government up to have checks and balances. An Independent voter should think differently than Party voters. Independents should vote in a way that optimizes the checks and balances built into the Constitution.

As a refresher, the US government has three branches, the Executive branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. Each has some degree of power to change the acts of another branch. Like, a president can veto the passage of a bill voted through by Congress. Congress can override a veto. The Supreme Court can throw a law out even though the Legislature passed it and the president signed it. Most states emulate this system of government, having their own executive branch (governor), legislature and Supreme Courts.

Independent strategic voting should optimize this system both at the national and state level.

What is Strategic Voting? It is really simple.

Firstly, Independents should not vote for individuals, since all of the individuals are essentially the same. Voting for individuals negatively affects the Constitution’s checks and balances. Voting for persons creates a smattering of party candidates being elected without an iterative pattern. The worst situation is when one party controls the Executive branch and both houses of the Legislative branch, which then can impact the make-up of the Judicial branch (by approving judges of the same party as is “in power”). Delusional and psychotic results can occur, damaging the nation.

Secondly, Independents should base their voting on their ideology identification for the Executive branch. Let’s say a person identifies as a liberal. Then, using the example of a two-party system, they should vote for a Democrat. It doesn’t matter who the person running for that branch is. They are all equally corrupt, self-serving, back-stabbing and pathological liars anyway.

Next, the Independent voter should vote for every Senate candidate of the opposite Party. In this example of the liberally leaning voter, that voter should vote Republican for Senator.

Finally, for the House candidates, the Independent voter should vote exclusively Democratic.

Using Strategic Voting, 42% of the US voters will be attempting to balance the branches of the US government, vs the crap shoot of voting for individual politicians (who are liars, schemers and corporate puppets anyway). According to polls, 35% of US voters are conservative and 26% are liberal. The remainder decline to identify. Let’s assume Independent voters  have the same make-up. Then remember, 29% of people say they are Democrats and 26% say they are Republican. Using Strategic Voting, it seems unlikely that one Party would control the Executive and Legislative branches at the same time. And Strategic Voting is a time saver. You don’t even have to look at the candidates’ names and you can ignore all of the ads and debates.

So, that’s Strategic Voting. Try it, you’ll like it.

 

1984, 2021 style

Have you read 1984 by George Orwell? If not, here’s a short overview of the book, which was written right after World War Two and published in 1949:

The world is divided into three super-states. The story takes place in “former” Great Britain which is part of the super-state Oceania. The government is authoritarian and controlling. The leader of the government is “Big Brother”. People who speak against the government disappear. More minor offenses are dealt with through re-programming. There are cameras and microphones everywhere so that citizens are under constant surveillance and are afraid to do or say anything that might get them in trouble. Televisions have cameras in them so Big Brother officials can watch people, thus the saying “Big Brother is Watching You”.

When people disappear, everything about them disappears, so, it looks like they never existed. The government will change facts to support their new position on something and facts related to the previous situation are totally deleted as if the facts of history never happened. The three super-states are constantly at war, with two super-states always allied against the third. Overnight, alliances switch, so that a super-state that was Oceania’s enemy yesterday is Oceania’s ally today and all previous information about that state being an enemy is erased and new information supporting that state always being Oceania’s ally is inserted in its place.

The following concepts are operative in the book.

Big Brother – The leader of the government (may or may not be a real person)

Perpetual War – The countries are always at war to unify the citizens to a singular purpose.

Omnipresent surveillance – Cameras and microphones everywhere

Propaganda – Information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence the citizens and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception in people’s minds

Thought Police – Secret police of the super-state, who discover and punish personal and political thoughts unapproved by the ruling party.

Newspeak – A continually diminishing vocabulary to allow for complete thoughts to be reduced to simple terms of simplistic meaning.

Doublethink – Simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs or facts as correct.

Telescreens – Television screens with cameras and microphones so Big Brother can “watch”.

2+2=5 – False dogma or information that a citizen is required to believe.

Memory Hole – Where the erased or deleted past facts, information or documents go.

Of course, George Orwell (whose real name coincidentally was Eric Blair) was writing a fictional book thinking that governments would eventually become “Big Brother” since his writings were based on his perception of the Nazi’s and Communism. It turns out, The Owl has figured out that most of the above concepts have come true but are not, in 2018, being perpetrated by governments, but by the citizens!

Let’s take these Orwellian concepts one by one as they exist in 2021.

Big Brother

As is sometimes inferred in Orwell’s book, in 2021 Big Brother is not an actual person, it is everyone with a smart phone and/or surveillance camera (like security cameras, “Ring” smart doorbells, etc.) and who translate information thusly obtained to expose someone for something they don’t like that a person said or did. Only a fool would think they have any sense of privacy in 2021. Although the government has some cameras (like at street intersections and government buildings), the vast majority of cameras and microphones are owned and operated by citizens and businesses (which are run by citizens). This makes “Big Brother” the citizens, not the government. Yes, Big Brother is watching you…your friends and neighbors and employer.

Perpetual War

It turns out, since the inception of the United States, the US has only experienced peace (not being at war) 7% of the time. Yes, 21/239 years. One could argue that the US has been at perpetual war. Check it out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States or Google it yourself.

Omnipresent Surveillance

Stated above. Smart phones, security cameras and microphones, etc. Owned mostly by the People.

Propaganda

Ever present on the internet and social media. Perpetrated almost exclusively by…the People, although politicians, whether in office or not, are producing it all of the time as well. Social media posts and tweets are notorious for this. Often proven to be totally false. It’s incessant. How about the folks saying Sandy Hook never happened; it was a contrived movie produced by gun control activists? Tweets, Facebook posts. We have to have websites like Snopes to chase down what is the real truth, although most people don’t go there to see, and not all of the untruths are investigated there. The result: people who read these tweets and posts believe these and are swayed by them, fulfilling the propaganda’s purpose, to misinform and create misperceptions in people’s minds.

Thought Police

Nowadays, this isn’t a government function or department, it is individuals, interest groups and advocacy groups. Someone says something and some individual, interest group or advocacy group makes a conclusion of what was in the mind of the person who said something, vociferously trying to convince everyone that their perception of that person’s thoughts are correct (e.g., their interpretation of a statement) and that everyone should be offended by what was said or happened, even when the person forcefully denies it. And, the public believes the “offended” individual, interest group or advocacy group not the person who said it, who is the only person who actually knows what was in their mind. Yes, people believing the person who says they know what another person meant despite the fact that the actual words used were different from that!

Newspeak

This one is easy. Just read a text. Texting shorthand, emoji’s, emoticons, bitmoji’s, etc. Aren’t they continually diminishing vocabulary to allow for complete thoughts to be reduced to simple terms of simplistic meaning?

Doublethink

Believing Fake News, which is rampant on the internet, despite the fact that people subliminally know it can’t be real.

Telescreens

Smart Phones, Personal assistants, computers with cameras above the screen, smart televisions.

2+2=5

Fake News which is all over the internet and social media. Not mostly promulgated by the government, mostly by the People with an agenda, although there are politicians producing it.

Memory Hole

This is going on now when a tweet or post is “taken down”. Or when emails “can’t be retrieved”. Or texts that are delete or can’t be retrieved. Recall people saying things like, “My smart phone broke and now I can’t get my previous texts” or “I traded in my smart phone and now no one can get the texts from that phone” or “The email server had a hiccup and the emails are permanently deleted and irretrievable”.

Disappearing People

In Nineteen Eighty-four, people who do something that Big Brother doesn’t like would disappear. Nowadays, since Big Brother is the People, people disappear when someone says something the People don’t like. They are “Cancelled”. Nowadays, there isn’t Free Speech, mainly because the First Amendment doesn’t cover censorship by the People, only the government. Here is the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

See, it says Congress shall make no law. But the People and employers can impose whatever prohibition or abridging on speech (including writings) they want by creating enough negative public opinion or, for employers, a company policy, that consequences can be applied when someone said something that some individual, interest group or advocacy group doesn’t like. There is no legal action relative to the consequence. People who say something some people find “offensive” lose their jobs and their lives are wrecked  just as badly as if they were arrested and sent to jail. Even if they apologize. Their apologies are never accepted. The People are unforgiving, just like the Oceania government in Nineteen Eighty-four.

So, in essence, there is no true Free Speech in the USA. The Orwellian concepts noted above are in operation mostly external to the government and apply dire consequences on the accused. The jury is the public and the media (who whip the public’s intolerance to an almost unimaginable intensity). Here’s a list of famous people who have lost their jobs, been sidelined and have had their lives negatively affected because they said something some people didn’t like. They lose their jobs mainly because the businesses they work for fear financial loss from people boycotting their businesses (Thinly veiled in disapproval. It’s really all about money.):

Rosanne Barr

Justine Sacco

Megyn Kelly

Michael Richards

RuPaul

Dr. James Watson

John Galliano

Mel Gibson

Gigi Hadid

Floyd Mayweather

Rihanna

Kathy Griffin

James Aurthur

Azealia Banks

PewDiePie

Josh Rivers

Ten Walls

Katie Hopkins

Billy Bush

Brian Williams

Not that The Owl agrees with what any of these people said and The Owl may be offended by what some of these people said. The point is, it doesn’t matter. In a country that espouses to Free Speech, they should be able to express their opinion.

The Owl says, there is now no such thing as Freedom of Speech in the USA. If there was, a person should be able to say whatever they want and not have a consequence other than some people don’t like it and are offended, with the exception of an organization, which legally can restrict what people say within the organization (but should not have a say in what employees say in public outside the organization; so an organization shouldn’t be able to fire someone for saying something in public that the organization doesn’t allow within their “four walls”/”on the clock”). The reach of an organization should end at the edge of their “walls”.

The Owl’s opinion is, one can hardly ever say anything that at least some people don’t agree with and could be offended. Even Colin Powell once said, “Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off.”  The Owl once placed this quote under his signature at work and almost lost his job. The higher ups were offended (no policy was violated, they just didn’t like it)…no Freedom of Speech in that company, even a quote from an august military and political person supporting the notion that you can never say anything that doesn’t offend somebody.

The Owl is sure some individual, interest group or advocacy group will be offended by this writing. The Owl hopes he doesn’t disappear! LOL! 😉