Interesting that everybody was so excited and willing to read 25,000 pages of Sarah Palin’s e-mails, but nobody could find the time to read 2,500 pages of the healthcare reform bill.
BAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
Overheard.
Applauding.
We are all somewhat impervious to new information, preferring the beliefs in which we are already invested. We often ignore new contradictory information, actively argue against it or discount its source, all in an effort to maintain existing evaluations. Reasoning away contradictions this way is psychologically easier than revising our feelings. In this sense, our emotions color how we perceive “facts.”
The simple reality is people feel before they think. And when those feelings are strong enough, facts take a back seat.
David P. Redlawsk, professor of political science and director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University.
On “motivated reasoning.”
Got it?
Save your breath.
Tagged: #EveryDivisiveIssueInTheWorld
P.S. “Motivated Reasoning” would be a great name for a political blog.
- # Motivated Reasoning
- # Pragmatism
- # Politics
- # Tech
- # Every Divisive Issue In the World
- # Democrat
- # Republican
- # Apple
- # PC
- # Mac
- # Windows
- # Blackberry
- # Android
- # Liberal
- # Conservative
- # p2
- # tcot
- # Racism
- # Sports
- # Microsoft
- # Windows
- # Bush
- # Obama
- # Hillary
- # Palin
- # Red
- # Blue
- # Reagan
- # Clinton
- # Government
- ∞ Permalink
- Posted 2 years ago
- Tweet this
- 8 notes
- Comment
A Return to Regular Order: Minority Leader John Boehner, in an e-mail exchange with National Journal, talks about how he will run the House if Republicans take the majority.
Of note:
Boehner: We need to stop writing bills in the speaker’s office and let members of Congress be legislators again. Too often in the House right now we don’t have legislators; we just have voters. Under Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, 430 out of the 435 members are just here to vote and raise money. That’s it. That’s not right. We were each elected to uphold the Constitution and represent 600,000-odd people in our districts. We need to open this place up, let some air in. We have nothing to fear from letting the House work its will–nothing to fear from the battle of ideas. That starts with the committees. The result will be more scrutiny and better legislation.
The House is the body closest to people. That’s by design. We’re the … the crucible, the testing ground for new ideas and new policies. And the institutions of the House that have grown up over 200 years of trial and error are the best way to test those ideas and policies. We don’t need five members sitting behind a closed door writing a bill, like they did with the “stimulus” or “Obamacare.”
And:
NJ: If you are speaker, will you ever bring a bill to the floor that hasn’t been true to the three-day rule?
Boehner: No.
In response to the question on how and where to cut spending, I’ve highlighted the following.
Boehner: I also said in my speech in September at AEI that I think we need to look at breaking up all these massive spending bills –- break them into smaller bills that are more conducive to scrutiny and debate. We said in the pledge that we need to set up a process that makes it easier to cut spending. In my mind that means, among other things, if a member has an amendment that would cut spending, it should get a vote. Period.
Think: all-encompassing immigration overhaul vs. sealing the border, path to citizenship, crackdown on employers, etc. as separate efforts. The constituency agrees on large portions of some of these massive proposals, so why not address directly those areas where there is agreement? Progress is made at the margins.
Boehner: I think the current majority has reinforced what I already knew: You can’t run this place, at least not well, by shutting out the American people, shutting out the other party, and even shutting out your own members. You can twist arms and crack heads and cut deals for a while, but it just won’t work in the long term. Let me add, though, that while we obviously have much different views of the world, I have no ill will toward the speaker. She and her staff have been gracious and professional when it comes to our direct dealings. Our differences are significant, but they’re philosophical and operational differences, not personal.
We’ll see how things shake out next Tuesday.
Republicans should realize that if they don’t hold to their principles this time, they will be cast out by the electorate just as quickly as this current Democratic majority, and potentially for a long while going forward. (Note: That ship may have sailed, too, for the more Leftist wing that has co-opted the leadership of the modern day Democratic Party. They’ve proven they can’t be trusted either).
To Rob Reiner, to the Bill Maher audience, how is it rational to fear the people calling for smaller government than those clamoring for more? If you’re going to ‘fear’ anyone, is it not more rational to fear today’s Left because they want greater control over people?
This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order.
— P.J. O’Rourke in The Weekly Standard
Funny line. The piece is a bit much.
For a more measured, erudite essay, see David Mamet’s “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal’” 2008 election season mea culpa from the Village Voice here.
Of note:
I wrote a play about politics (November)…
The play, while being a laugh a minute, is, when it’s at home, a disputation between reason and faith, or perhaps between the conservative (or tragic) view and the liberal (or perfectionist) view. The conservative president in the piece holds that people are each out to make a living, and the best way for government to facilitate that is to stay out of the way, as the inevitable abuses and failures of this system (free-market economics) are less than those of government intervention.
I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.
As a child of the ’60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.
These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the fuck up. ”?” she prompted. And her terse, elegant summation, as always, awakened me to a deeper truth: I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place. Further: I found I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as “a brain-dead liberal,” and to NPR as “National Palestinian Radio.”
This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong.
But in my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part.
And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama.
…
I found not only that I didn’t trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.
Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.
And I began to question my hatred for “the Corporations”—the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.
And I began to question my distrust of the “Bad, Bad Military” of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations—they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will. Are these groups infallible, free from the possibility of mismanagement, corruption, or crime? No, and neither are you or I. So, taking the tragic view, the question was not “Is everything perfect?” but “How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?” Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.
…
Do I speak as a member of the “privileged class”? If you will—but classes in the United States are mobile, not static, which is the Marxist view. That is: Immigrants came and continue to come here penniless and can (and do) become rich; the nerd makes a trillion dollars; the single mother, penniless and ignorant of English, sends her two sons to college (my grandmother). On the other hand, the rich and the children of the rich can go belly-up; the hegemony of the railroads is appropriated by the airlines, that of the networks by the Internet; and the individual may and probably will change status more than once within his lifetime.
What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.
But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?
I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to.
Just read it.
“Right-wingers are obsessed with your bedrooms and sex, while Left-wingers are obsessed with…every other room in your house.”
So clever, so succinct:
“So, Right-wingers are obsessed with your bedrooms and sex, while Left-wingers are obsessed with…every other room in your house. Forget about the bedroom —- they want to know what’s in your fridge, is it bottled water, how much electricity your fridge uses, what your thermostat is set at, how you insulate your attic, what’s in your garage, what’s your car —- they want to even know what’s in your light bulbs, what’s in your lamp. New slogan: ‘Stay out of my light bulb. This is America.’”
Phelim McAleer, Irish journalist and director and producer of ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’
RE: Obama's back-to-school 'Socialist' agenda
President Barack Obama, whose two young daughters return to school next week, has some back-to-school plans of his own: An unprecedented presidential address to public schoolchildren at noon EDT on Tuesday.
Arne Duncan, the president’s secretary of education, has one way of explaining it: “The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.”
Jim Greer, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, has another explanation for it: “As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology.”
Wait, what?
Not surprising. If children stay in school, they’ll be able to see through the lies and distortion of the Republican Party. They wouldn’t want that to happen!
The “politics” of politics bores me, and we’re clearly not dealing with Einstein in this Greer cat, but touché on that last comment.
If Economics was taught in public schools (good luck getting that curriculum by the NEA), no one would ever vote for today’s staunch Lefty breed of Liberal Democrat.
You’re all not as “Liberal” as you think. Socially, sure, fine. Your social and practical, fiscal perspectives are two different things, though. Sometimes they transcend one another (it’s best when they do), sometimes they don’t, but stop confusing the two.
Came to the conclusion recently that perhaps the GOP’s biggest issue when it comes to courting young folk is poor branding and bad PR. The language alone puts them at a disadvantage. “Liberal” vs. “Conservative.” What 18 year-old is going to refer to themsleves as “Conservative” in any respect?
“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” - Sir Winston Churchill
“Let’s help the helpless, yes…Americans are unparalleled in that. But the clueless? Who gives a shit about the clueless?” - Dennis Miller
They need a new name. “Pragmatic” Party? “Keep Y’all In Check” Party?
And, yes, they have to back up those words and their claims with their actions, which they’ve failed to do lately. And Americans voiced their frustrations at this in the voting booth in 2006 and 2008. Pragmatism judges an ideology on its practical application. It negates blind ideology. Not a bad premise. Republicans broke the “contract” that they made with Americans in 1994. They were shown the door for it. Yay, democracy.
“I always like to look on the optimistic side of life, but I am realistic enough to know that life is a complex matter.” - Walt Disney
We all could use a healthy dose of dreamin’ in our world, but don’t let it cloud your judgement. Moderation…balance…yin and yang…
New rule:
I don’t care all that much about the number of houses a Presidential candidate owns or his personal life. I would like it required, though, that all candidates must submit their college transcripts. Not to see their grades. Irrelevent. I’m more interested in what classes they took. Unless you’ve, at least, passed Economics 102, you can’t be President. Fair enough? Econ 101 is not enough. Everyone thinks they’re Karl Friggin’ Marx after Econ 101. The next time a college freshman with an East German flag on his sleeve hands you a flyer on the street, tell him to work a day in his life first before telling you or anyone else what you “should” or shouldn’t do.
P.S. - Anyone else think Obama would have made a better “Black Leader” than President? He wasn’t ready for President at this point. Sorry. (For the record, McCain was no gem). A few more years of experience, preferably outside of the Senate and in some executive capacities, and maybe we could have revisited the idea. That said, though, his upbringing is pretty inspiring to all communities, and he sets a fairly good example for young people of all races to aspire to. Sharpton and Jackson have become caricatures. Bill Cosby doesn’t seem to want the position. O’s smooth as hell, and can even get away with calling Kanye a “jackass” and telling “brothers to pull up their pants.” He’s absolutely perfect for the position. How does one apply? Anyone know?
