Friday, October 24, 2008

Propaganda of Crocodile Tears? Check Rhetoric Bona Fides

Vetting Candidate Promises

What is the Record,
What is the Motivation Now

Is This Claim Sustainable

.
The campaign's ended, but abuses? They linger on. In any campaign, in any administration, candidates and officials promise. New agencies. New means. Do this. Do that. When to believe the "sincerity" of the concern, and when to be suspicious. Be very suspicious. Is the candidate or the official weeping crocodile tears:
  • "I am so concerned for the hatters who are now going mad because of my policies. See my concern. I am so concerned. I am so very concerned. I wish them well."
And the person sweeps off.

Or is the concern going to translate into action.


I. Crocodile Tears. The History.

A useful analytic, expressive idea. See its history.

Back in 1230 AD, this source says that the French (in the land of the Franks) referred to crocodile tears as part of a belief that the crocs indeed wept while eating their victims, see .://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/104800.html.

There was another myth about 1400 with the same claims. The idea was that the reptiles experienced remorseful emotions, while consuming.

In 1563, in a source reprinted in 1711, the Archbishop of York and Canterbury tied insincerity with crocodile tears.

II. Crocodile Tears. The Measure

To check for crocodile tears in political speech, measure the microphoned weep against:
  • a candidate's prior record on the issue, for consistency; and
  • new circumstances, if this is a new interest and promise; and
  • the availability of resources reasonably to implement the promise; and
  • partnering up with the private sector to get the best, broadest results
The Role of Record; and Circumstances. How Deep is a Commitment to a Cause.

Past record only goes so far in indicating commitment - people do change. Circumstances change. We disagree that change of mind is weakness, but look at records to see consistency, depth of commitment, Does the past support the new position or not - informational, but not dispositive about whether there really will be follow-through.

More important, can there be follow-through in a tanking economic setting. Or is this new focus an emotional ploy, mere sales talk in an election year, and not really to happen. Hard issues.

III. The Real Thing:

When a Concern Leads to Boosting Existing, Efficient Resources
Rather than Vague Talk to Glorify the Politician


Special Needs. Fortunately, that area had a friend in the White House decades ago, with lasting results. A Kennedy. A claim by a candidate (who lost) that now special needs children could have a friend in the White House is manipulative and ignorant.

As a start, meet the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation; and Eunice Kennedy Shriver, founder; and Timothy P. Shriver, Chairman of the Board of Special Olympics, and the others in her family deeply involved, at ://www.specialolympics.org/Special+Olympics+Public+Website/English/About_Us/Leaders/Mrs.+Shriver+Bio.htm.

Is it permissible to post a picture of Mr. Shriver that we took at an official Special Olympics event? If not, do let us know. We wanted to show a face with the position of CEO, and he is highly motivating.

The private sector, along the lines of the Gospel of Andrew Carnegie, see Martin Luther's Stove, Gospel of Andrew Carnegie, is alive and well in that area. Partner up, candidate.

How much of a former candidate's book deals will go to the cause so touted in the campaign? Or did we see crocodile tears. How much will promote local associations for special needs citizens. The "ARC" network - Association for Retarded Citizens. Or to the more politically attractive autism issue.

We need to broaden the horizon beyond political self-serving flash points. How about setting an example of largesse from the governeurre.

Formal research is on specific conditions is, of course, needed (including in areas such as fruit flies, we kid you not), and it appears that autism is on the rise. Research is fine, but look also at the services needed for those need who are already here.

Please. Reach across the aisle and partner up. Real celebrities do. Even Vanessa Williams, in all her gorgeousness, works to further Special Olympics - here, an event for her film, with a Special Needs main actor - "My Brother." See ://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2827/is_/ai_n29345041/

The handsome fellow to the right is not him. Guess who.

Vanessa Williams, at 2007 "My Brother" film preview
Vetting Candidate Promises

What is the Record,
What is the Motivation Now

Is This Claim Sustainable

.
In any campaign, candidates promise. New agencies. New means. Do this. Do that. When to believe the "sincerity" of the concern, and when to be suspicious. Be very suspicious. Is the candidate weeping crocodile tears:
  • "I am so concerned for the hatters who are now going mad because of my policies. See my concern. I am so concerned. I am so very concerned. I wish them well."
And the person sweeps off.

Or is the concern going to translate into action.


I. Crocodile Tears. The History.

A useful analytic, expressive idea. See its history.

Back in 1230 AD, this source says that the French (in the land of the Franks) referred to crocodile tears as part of a belief that the crocs indeed wept while eating their victims, see .://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/104800.html.

There was another myth about 1400 with the same claims. The idea was that the reptiles experienced remorseful emotions, while consuming.

In 1563, in a source reprinted in 1711, the Archbishop of York and Canterbury tied insincerity with crocodile tears.

II. Crocodile Tears. The Measure

To check for crocodile tears in political speech, measure the microphoned weep against:
  • a candidate's prior record on the issue, for consistency; and
  • new circumstances, if this is a new interest and promise; and
  • the availability of resources reasonably to implement the promise; and
  • partnering up with the private sector to get the best, broadest results
The Role of Record; and Circumstances. How Deep is a Commitment to a Cause.

Past record only goes so far in indicating commitment - people do change. Circumstances change. We disagree that change of mind is weakness, but look at records to see consistency, depth of commitment, Does the past support the new position or not - informational, but not dispositive about whether there really will be follow-through.

More important, can there be follow-through in a tanking economic setting. Or is this new focus an emotional ploy, mere sales talk in an election year, and not really to happen. Hard issues.

III. The Real Thing:

When a Concern Leads to Boosting Existing, Efficient Resources
Rather than Vague Talk to Glorify the Politician


Special Needs. Fortunately, that area had a friend in the White House decades ago, with lasting results. A Kennedy. A claim by a candidate (who lost) that now special needs children could have a friend in the White House is manipulative and ignorant.

As a start, meet the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation; and Eunice Kennedy Shriver, founder; and Timothy P. Shriver, Chairman of the Board of Special Olympics, and the others in her family deeply involved, at ://www.specialolympics.org/Special+Olympics+Public+Website/English/About_Us/Leaders/Mrs.+Shriver+Bio.htm.

Is it permissible to post a picture of Mr. Shriver that we took at an official Special Olympics event? If not, do let us know. We wanted to show a face with the position of CEO, and he is highly motivating.

The private sector, along the lines of the Gospel of Andrew Carnegie, see Martin Luther's Stove, Gospel of Andrew Carnegie, is alive and well in that area. Partner up, candidate.

How much of a former candidate's book deals will go to the cause so touted in the campaign? Or did we see crocodile tears. How much will promote local associations for special needs citizens. The "ARC" network - Association for Retarded Citizens. Or to the more politically attractive autism issue.

We need to broaden the horizon beyond political self-serving flash points. How about setting an example of largesse from the governeurre.

Formal research is on specific conditions is, of course, needed (including in areas such as fruit flies, we kid you not), and it appears that autism is on the rise. Research is fine, but look also at the services needed for those need who are already here.

Please. Reach across the aisle and partner up. Real celebrities do. Even Vanessa Williams, in all her gorgeousness, works to further Special Olympics - here, an event for her film, with a Special Needs main actor - "My Brother." See ://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2827/is_/ai_n29345041/

The handsome fellow to the right is not him. Guess who.

Vanessa Williams, at 2007 "My Brother" film preview
Vetting Candidate Promises

What is the Record,
What is the Motivation Now

Is This Claim Sustainable

.
In any campaign, candidates promise. New agencies. New means. Do this. Do that. When to believe the "sincerity" of the concern, and when to be suspicious. Be very suspicious. Is the candidate weeping crocodile tears:
  • "I am so concerned for the hatters who are now going mad because of my policies. See my concern. I am so concerned. I am so very concerned. I wish them well."
And the person sweeps off.

Or is the concern going to translate into action.


I. Crocodile Tears. The History.

A useful analytic, expressive idea. See its history.

Back in 1230 AD, this source says that the French (in the land of the Franks) referred to crocodile tears as part of a belief that the crocs indeed wept while eating their victims, see .://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/104800.html.

There was another myth about 1400 with the same claims. The idea was that the reptiles experienced remorseful emotions, while consuming.

In 1563, in a source reprinted in 1711, the Archbishop of York and Canterbury tied insincerity with crocodile tears.

II. Crocodile Tears. The Measure

To check for crocodile tears in political speech, measure the microphoned weep against:
  • a candidate's prior record on the issue, for consistency; and
  • new circumstances, if this is a new interest and promise; and
  • the availability of resources reasonably to implement the promise; and
  • partnering up with the private sector to get the best, broadest results
The Role of Record; and Circumstances. How Deep is a Commitment to a Cause.

Past record only goes so far in indicating commitment - people do change. Circumstances change. We disagree that change of mind is weakness, but look at records to see consistency, depth of commitment, Does the past support the new position or not - informational, but not dispositive about whether there really will be follow-through.

More important, can there be follow-through in a tanking economic setting. Or is this new focus an emotional ploy, mere sales talk in an election year, and not really to happen. Hard issues. "Never smile at a crocodile." Peter Pan. Hear it at Geocities://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Cottage/3192/Crocodile.html/ Was this left on the cutting room floor at Disney or is it still in? YouTube: see the Croc like a true pol - ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX4_WHBNskc

III. The Real Thing:

When a Concern Leads to Boosting Existing, Efficient Resources
Rather than Vague Talk to Glorify the Politician


Special Needs. Fortunately, that area had a friend in the White House decades ago, with lasting results. A Kennedy. A claim by a candidate (who lost) that now special needs children could have a friend in the White House is manipulative and ignorant.

As a start, meet the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation; and Eunice Kennedy Shriver, founder; and Timothy P. Shriver, Chairman of the Board of Special Olympics, and the others in her family deeply involved, at ://www.specialolympics.org/Special+Olympics+Public+Website/English/About_Us/Leaders/Mrs.+Shriver+Bio.htm.

Is it permissible to post a picture of Mr. Shriver that we took at an official Special Olympics event? If not, do let us know. We wanted to show a face with the position of CEO, and he is highly motivating.

The private sector, along the lines of the Gospel of Andrew Carnegie, see Martin Luther's Stove, Gospel of Andrew Carnegie, is alive and well in that area. Partner up, candidate.

How much of a former candidate's book deals will go to the cause so touted in the campaign? Or did we see crocodile tears. How much will promote local associations for special needs citizens. The "ARC" network - Association for Retarded Citizens. Or to the more politically attractive autism issue.

We need to broaden the horizon beyond political self-serving flash points. How about setting an example of largesse from the governeurre.

Formal research is on specific conditions is, of course, needed (including in areas such as fruit flies, we kid you not), and it appears that autism is on the rise. Research is fine, but look also at the services needed for those need who are already here.

Please. Reach across the aisle and partner up. Real celebrities do. Even Vanessa Williams, in all her gorgeousness, works to further Special Olympics - here, an event for her film, with a Special Needs main actor - "My Brother." See ://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2827/is_/ai_n29345041/

The handsome fellow to the right is not him. Guess who.

Vanessa Williams, at 2007 "My Brother" film previewIs it ok to use this picture we took, Vanessa?

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Tax: Restitution, Reallocation, or Reward Purpose. None. Tax is for Funding, Productivity.

Studying Uses of Tax and Tax Relief:


Government Inverventions
For Purposes of Essential Needs Funding and Productivity

    Tax. Unnnhnh. What is it good for?

    Here we look at tax policies.  Is tax to reward success. Or is tax policy a tool to spread what money we have over the whole field, for the sake of the whole crop. Like fertilizer. But only for the conjoined national purposes of  a) promoting productivity, and  b) funding essential governmental services. Our conclusion so far is sequential:  Rewards for success begin once the national goals are met. People productive or in a position to be? Then let the rewards for success begin.

    Nowhere is tax properly applied from the outset to make wealthy people wealthier for its own sake, or set out to make anyone wealthy apart from the overall goals of national productivity and meeting essential needs. Tax is not to entrench some on the top steps; and continue to dump on those in the hole at the bottom.

    Tax relief is part of overall tax policy for the good of the nation.

    Then the implementation issues begin: How to get people better started up the "stairway" to productivity -- up the two risers and a run that each step entails. See FN 1.

    Tax relief can serve as a kind of leveling of the risers at targeted points.  It targets freebies - economic boosts -  to groups where that will boost their productivity, as deductions, credits, boosts, stimulus packages, rebates. Historically, freebies, giveaways, are a valid form of booster shot - and part of our history from our earliest days. See FodderSight: American Uses of Boosts, Freebies.  Upper echelon people call those "freebies" property transmission rights, inheritance, matching funds, etc. And consider them entitlements. So there should be no difficulty - reality check needed - in seeing that others in their echeloi enjoy similar boosts.

    An issue remains, however:  There is a tipping point. Some people end up living off their freebies: those who inherited may just coast, in the same way they accuse the lower folk of "coasting" on payouts. The freebie works to reduce their productivity? Is that a rule or a myth, or worth fussing about at all. Most folks like to "do" and will if they can. Is that a rule or a myth?

    .
    Is it true that the second or third generation down from the mogul really doesn't do much? Perhaps. You look around. Are they creative, energetic, the same calibre as the forebear? See FN 2.  Our view is why worry. First we get everybody out of the hole at the bottom of the stair, make opportunity a reality, then worry about moral or cultural value issues of people living without producing. Rich and poor  do it. Cope later. Or why bother? First, to the hole.

      I. Tax and Financial Policy Options



       A. Impose Tax Rates to Protect High Earners in our Capitalist System And Their Wealth. 

      If we free up more money for the high earners, they will invest in the country and wellbeing trickles down. To do otherwise is Socialism.  Reinstating or restoring old tax rates, in order to reallocate which income groups pay what to promote nationa productivity or for governmental needs, is "socialist" if it impinges on the ability of others in the big time to accrue wealth.

      B.  Impose Tax Rates to Enable Workers to Benefit from their Work. 

      If we free up more money for the lower earners, they are better able to meet their own needs with a cushion against disaster: stable productivity, and the opportunity even to accrue wealth. Reinstating or restoring old tax rates so those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder can put something aside after taxes, is a valid way of valuing work by giving a reward to the worker. 

       C.  Karl Marx. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


      THE SOCIALIST! (Hush!)

      That is one phrase out of 2500 pages, see ://thinkexist.com/quotation/from_each-according_to_his_ability-to_each/198619.html/;://www.bartleby.com/66/39/38139.html.

        Do We Toss all of Karl? Or can we learn from his theories?

        See the quotation at ://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.html; and biographies at ://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html; ://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/marx/eng-1869.htm/.

        Spend time with Marx, since his name is being raised. Read his predictions because he knew altruism alone would not work.

        We agree that altruism alone fails. See section D. Things don't trickle. Stuff goes offshore. But this Marx concept of allocation is a complex area, and how many citizens have studied Marx, in order to critique the use of the term "socialism." Marx wrote of the dangers of unbridled capitalism - it leads capitalists to consume themselves - to a "krach" or crash - see Business Times OnLine, "Banking crisis gives added capital to Karl Marx's writings," at ://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article4974912.ece/

        D.  Don't intervene with tax or any other governmental act.  Trust Altruism. Promote Work for Others Without Reward.


        This alone fails.  Marx was off base in that adage, as shown by earlier attempts to raise moral pleas to the level of obligation, as at Plymouth MA colony. Marx's approach does not increase productivity for long, because people run out of steam working without reward - working for others. Most people are not altruistic enough.

        But Karl Marx had significant predictions about the demise of capitalism, that capitalism left unchecked would lead to the devouring of capitalists by each other, as we recall - looking it up - and see what else he said, and how the predictions are coming along - see "Das Kapital." See ://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/pdf/ess_marxsanalysis.pdf/

        E. We need a hybrid.  Change the cultural narrative to encompass whatever works to foster productivity and fund legitimate governmental enterprises

        II. The Bonanza as Legitimate Government Intvervention

        A.  Open up choice by changing the narrative: Value Freebies


        Government inverventions, including tax policy, are to fund essential government needs, and foster productivity so that people do not need the same degree of governmental interventions as before.

        Culturally, we think we are a great nation because we work for a living. We pull ourselves up just like our ancestors when they first arrived here.  But that is a lie.  Our ancestors enjoyed vast freebies.  And getting a freebie was not a bad thing. National and, earlier colonial, goals were served even when the act was to give someone something - free, at least for a time.
        Targeted giveaways are a valid financial policy.

        Freebies increase productivity. Freebies, boosts, are part of our history, but only a negative when people imagine the needy getting it. See FodderSight, American Uses of Boosts.

        Stimulus packages have fostered people from Plymouth Plantation. to the Sooners, to freed slaves in the the Georgia coast area after the Civil War. Freebies do spread the wealth around - and have long been behind our national success, for those who got them. Boosts, freebies, stimulus packages, gifts, all part of our background. Inheritance rights, deductions, establishing dynasties through favorable tax, and corporate welfare, all forms of freebies. Fine for me but not for you.
        B.  Reduce resistance to government interventions by figuring out first, What is essential to productivity in people, and national needs that cannot be addressed locally? 

        1. What does it take to foster productivity in the population?

        A mere "income" tax is inadequate in concept.  Even where a graduated system means some working people earn so little that they only pay sales taxes, or social security taxes, or medicare taxes, and no "income" taxes at all, that still leaves people in the hole. Too many are in a hole and unable to get a leg up - even by paying only sales, medicare and social security taxes.

        How to carve out enough for people at the lower income levels so that we meet our funding and productivity needs, but fill in the hole.  Why not a modified idea -- tax "disposable" income.

        That would mean many people still pay no "income" tax until a far higher level had been reached - they continue to pay social security, sales and medicare; but the larger bite of "income"  tax comes only when they are able to meet basic expenses after they have paid those other taxes.

        That is a freebie. A boost. More time with no "income" tax.  But can we look back to our own history and use freebies, boosts, as stimulus ideas as we have since our earliest national history. Can we see the place of imposing higher income taxes on those with very high "disposable incomes" - in order for the culture to fill in the hole at the bottom.

        2.  What other areas should government be involved in

        C. If Government Does Intervene, then When and For How Long?

        Simple - you need Transparency, Accountability and an Exit Strategy as to each proposed or in-process intervention, and then the answer will become clearer in each instance.   Surprise - look what that strategy is as an acronym  - TAX.  The exit strategy is not complicated - build in an automatic sunset provision.  This structure will terminate on Dec.31 and revert to the prior provisions in effect, absent further vote by supermajority.

        That gives time to show demonstrable results, and persuade for the supermajority to vote for a continuance.  Nothing indefinite.

        Private sector role.  It has or had its chance. If the private sector is not accomplishing the goals of fostering productivity of citizens, or it will not or cannot meet regional and national needs, government will. And must. Our choice which will do it, or a hybrid. For the good of our democracy.

        Tax has been so loudly represented as a way to "reward success," that it is becoming believed just out of repetition.  Good propaganda.

        But it is short-sighted, greedy in failing to recognize the contribution of those below, and the need for their productivity; and dysfunctional. It misses the point of funding and promoting national productivity, and misleads voters.

        Propaganda Labeling.  If citizens were educated (now, there is an indispensable government service) they would not even be call a restoration of a prior tax level 'socialist'. We need independent sources of information, and analytical skills, and many people don't have either.

        All the better to lead you with, my dear.

        D.  Implementation

        1. Reduce resistance to government interventions by specifying what is an essential service, and controlling expenditures for it: accountability and transparency.

        There is more to tax and government intervention than merely spreading stuff around. Educate the people as to what money really is. Money is a facilitator. So how does government use it, to facilitate what.

        Is tax to reward success, or to spread what money we have over the whole field for the sake of the whole crop.  Once that is done, and if their is surplus, than allocate the surplus as we like.



        Yes, money is very like manure.

        Of course we have to spread it around.

        Think what has happened, now that we let too much accumulate in one corner: acidic, toxic, badly aromatic, breeding disease, collapse, and the rest of the field, dusty. Better, don't.

        Government needs funding, and the citizenry must be productive. Moving money can do both. Look at all forms of boosts and taxation as a targeted stimulus plan, where and as long as needed. Taxes and other interventions are not to protect "wealth" or right wrongs.

        But we need a coherent concept for tax to be seen as reasonably fair. The "flat tax" fails - the rigid application up a rigid staircase. We have a graduated system, but it also fails. Starts tax at too low an income level. Too many people are in the deep hole at the bottom, and can't even get a leg up.

        2. Widen the reach of low or no tax until a basic disposable income level is reached.   
        Then tax that.  Not just "income" but "disposable income" as a concept.

        Define poverty level regionally as what it costs for that person or family in that region to meet basic needs. Food, clothing, healthcare, unreimbursed medicals, transportation, insurances, shelter. Where is daycare? Lost. But Legislatures set that. That poverty level amount represents the first "run" for people to be able to rest on, with the lowest riser in front of them to the next level.

        That group still pays social security tax, sales tax, property tax.  Just not "income tax."  But graduate up also more slowly, and increase it longer.  Increase the max until everyone is out of the hole at the bottom. This needs adjusting for the differently abled, the disabled, so please upgrade here.


         Even add a low-income matching grant -

        This gets back to the role of freebies. Perhaps "basic needs" measure is indeed the "welfare" amount in effect now. This is not our field. The suggestion here is to provide that for every $2 earned, the government will pay a further $1.

        And that stays in effect until the person, with their own earnings, is at some figure - say $5,000, or whatever.

        That is their 40 acres and a mule that Sherman provided for that one year after the Civil War for those on the coastal areas of Georgia.. Their "Sooner" head start in areas where people could line up for the land grabs in their wagons - once the Injuns were driven off.. No questions, no bureaucracy.

        What if people don't work? Ok. They can stay on that lowest run all their lives if they like.

        Would a government match encourage employers to hire and raise wages so the person earns more faster and gets out of the govt matching? Sure, if there were a credit for hiring. Those are on the table. The $5,000 is not fluff - it is needed for daycare ($150 per week per child?) or tuition, or a washer.

        This looks like an escalator form of the old staircase to susccess idea. No hole at the bottom, however, for people to stay trapped in before they can even get a let up on the stairs.  And keep the lower risers low. The way up is past a short, nearly level, riser to the next level, then very gradually increasing risers, to the stars. See FN 1 - Two risers and a run.  Ask your local builder.

        Use your own moxie to move up - no automatic elevations. Everyone has a basic floor as needed for full productivity. Does that mean some freebies? Why not. The current system is not providing funding and not promoting national productivity. Regroup. See FN 3 on the model idea.


        ....................................
        FN 1
        • Stairs. Ask your favorite builder.Stairs are made of risers - the vertical boards and the runs - the horizontal boards.
        See http://www.bestdecksite.com/deck_map/deck_map_riser.htm/. The ladder idea works against a fair allocation of disposable incomes. The nicest staircases are by formula - say, two risers and a run added up should equal 24" or 25" - so a run of 10" and two risers at 7" each would be fine. See "How To Build Stairs," at ://www.bestdecksite.com/deck_map/deck_map_riser.htm/. Can't do formulas with societies. Pay a flat tax and some people cannot help but have to run up credit cards, fall back. Others have so much disposable income they have more than entire countries, probably. Pay the current tax structure, same result. We rule out whole literal classes of consumers - then wonder why the economy fails.
        Stairs built badly, with unexpected differences in risers and runs make people fall; or, even keep them from getting to that first step. And worse - look at the foot of the stairs. There might even be a hole, by golly. Peer down. Go on your knees and look. Are there people there, trying to reach up to the rim of the hole and they keep falling back - the lobster principle in the cities?

        Builders say that a good staircase may follow a formula - two risers and a run should equal about 24" or 25." If you have a 10" run, then two risers at 7" or 7 1/2" each would be fine. Comfortable. That works when everyone on the stairs is equal, or at least is well out of the hole at the bottom.

        Make tax conceptually a disposable income tax. Everyone first retains the ability to pay the most basic expenses for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, insurances, transportation.

         ............................................

        FN 2
        Merely rewarding success fails. Rewarding "success" should not be the rationale for a tax policy. It leads to sloth at the top. Take inheritances, passing down virtually intact. How many heirs, two generations down, are really sharp? Deserve it?

        From menu for "celebratory" dinner, The Round Table Fellows, 1929, Kramer's Restaurant, Pittsburgh

        Our protecting wealth as an entitlement has gotten everyone in trouble, because it means if you get away with secreting it, no matter how ill-gotten, or whose administration gave you a free ride, you get it. Who should have just said no?

        Wednesday, October 15, 2008

        Who's Smart? Gardner's List. of Multiple Intelligences. Trumps Traditional Measures for Leadership by Traditional Measures

        Multiple Intelligences:

        Gardner's List Supersedes Mere IQ Numbering
        In Its Place: Facets of Motor, Retention,
        Perception and Skills - like a Diamond.
        Brightness Is Placement of Cuts; Not the Weight of the Rock
        .
        I. The Single Measure

        Old IQ.
        Until 1983, IQ testing was the norm and largely unquestioned as how to measure how bright thou art.
        .
        New Approach.

        Then, one Dr. Howard Gardner came up with his intelligence octet - eight areas in which different people shine or no. Intelligence is no longer reduced to one number to describe a person's abilities. See Dr. Gardner's book, "Frames of Mind," and start reading as a Google book at ://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=_vLmG9qEROgC&dq=multiple+intelligences&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=vnk1FuGGx0&sig=wXgqbHEt589YDZ6cZYU7a5DldIY&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=14&ct=result#PPR9,M1

        .
        This is a move toward the experiential idea that people have many ways of showing intelligence, and different "receptors" for learning, depending on their own makeup. This affects classroom applications, and politics. The more dimensional a leader, the more likely that leader will sense solutions where the linear leaders, leaders who tout "years" or "military," at the exclusion of other skills and sensitivities, will not.
        .
        We are glad to see the idea of multiple intelligences in the schools - children left behind may, with a flexible, multi-tasker teacher, yet be reached. But why not take it a step beyond, into presidential politics. We hear about "experience" mattering - how about what kind of "experience" it is, and how it balances with the other view of intelligence - many facets.
        .
        II. The multiple intelligences.
        The Gardner List. This Gardner's list is from the site of Thomas Armstrong, Ph.D., educator and psychologist at ://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm: Read the discussion there. See FN 1.

        .
        Intelligence when seen in multiples can becombinations of
        • linguistic,
        • logical and mathematical,
        • spatial,
        • bodily-kinesthetic,
        • musical,
        • inter-personal (among people),
        • intra-persnal (oneself), and
        • naturalistic - wise in the ways of nature. .
        III. Why do we need this broader approach:

        The narrow criteria idea has not worked.

        Our culture worships the articulate, mathematical and logical; and we pay people who have those skills fortunes. We admire them as mega-entrepreneurs, persuading us of their products in their articulate way. Here comes an update 12/08 - We have then let our adored, spoiled children grow out of all reasonable adult supervision the following: Madoff, Wall Street, Enron, numerous others in that category, including those who just let the money pile up without a look behind. To our great loss.

        But this adulation comes also at the expense of the humanist, the arts, the sensors. Our culture also worships the snappy sound bite - so someone who is inarticulate when not scripted, and illogical if not given a teleprompter, still can win. Fake it 'til you make it? Is that so?
        .
        See who is excluded from the articulate-logical measure: the "artists, architects, musicians, naturalists, designers, dancers, therapists, entrepreneurs." That must mean the ordinary entrepreneur, creating or finding product, and selling it responsibly, not as a corporation? Need to learn more here.
        .
        Who are you?

        Go here to assess yourself. See ://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm. Get colorful with an Images search for multiple intelligences..

        IV. How does our pending President measure up?

        Another update: Assess the president elect - Barack Obama
        • The Other: That One. Barack Obama.
        Experiential:

        Raised close to the financial wire, even on food stamps; multi-racial exposure in family and in where he lived growing up, intergenerational experience being raised by grandparents, abandoned by father,stayed focused and got scholarships to some of our best schools, professional degree (law), experience in low income areas as well as in a high-fallutin' law firm, faithful.
        .
        Look at the multiple intelligences list - add the kinetic (shooting hoops like a pro), body surfer, see Joy of Equivocating, Candidates in the Water, articulate, mathematical, attracts and does well with other people except his present opponent, logical, don't know about the naturalistic but it would be hard to live in Hawaii and not appreciate that, etc.
        .
        This voter. The long and narrow experience is long and narrow indeed. We have no idea of numerical IQ's, but that never seems to govern.
        .
        We like the multiple intelligences approach for a diverse time with varieties of opportunities, need new ways of looking. Look back, and consider his opponent, Mr. McCain, at Fn 1
        .
        V. Multiple intelligences and all voters.

        How to spread ideas like multiple intelligences into all the demographics, including isolated, declining hollows.

        How else to include everyone in the dialogue. The conversation.

        The media is private, owned by a few who then control the papers, the airwaves, the tv, the cable. We need internet - everywhere.

        By depriving our people of computers, even if it is an internet common storefront in the neighborood, we keep new ideas away from voters and diiminish their ability to think independently by fostering their ignorance. We take away the neutrality of media they can afford, and they are left with rumor and radio-TV media spin.

        There, at the door. Enter, that elderly lady at the McCain rally who said that Obama is an Arab. We should be ashamed of ourselves for letting that stuff fly. Where does the Constitution protect lies? See Joy of Equivocating, Political Free Speech Meme - Fabricating. As commercial speech? Fix it there, too.

        See Dr. Gardner's book, "Frames of Mind," and start reading as a Google book at ://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=_vLmG9qEROgC&dq=multiple+intelligences&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=vnk1FuGGx0&sig=wXgqbHEt589YDZ6cZYU7a5DldIY&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=14&ct=result#PPR9,M1

        VI. Apply the concepts to adults at work.
        .
        The gist seems to be that people do well when they can learn or earn their livings through their favored modes. A child with ADD, for example, may that this kinetic-oriented child will not do well kept at a desk, learining by memorization. Teach our teachers to offer multiple ways of teaching a lesson - cast a broader net - to give all students a reasonable chance of learning.
        .
        Employers may have a gem in the cubicle who is dying to get out and do the actual testing. Find the niche before you fire.

        ....................................................
        FN 1
        • The elder candidate. Mr. McCain. Do a look back from this perspective, whichever candidate you supported.
        Look back at the multiple intelligences list.

        He was raised in privilege in the military, with a high-ranking but often absent father in the military; he followed in his father's footsteps into the military, had a bad experience in the military for up to five years (some dispute how bad after they learned about his high-ranking father), then came home, found someone else domestically, divorced, remarried, remained and increased in the privileged scale domestically, and has been in Washington's womb ever since.
        .
        Day to day exposure to populations here of a minority or tinted persuasion?
        .
        Never served on boards serving people in a different economic or social class, to our knowledge, not doing any administrative work at all. Looks like the usual suspects, in the house, in the senate, with the same people or sorts of people all the time, no financial worries.

        In speech? Swings from boring to abrasive. See recommendation at FodderSight, Podium 101, Required Course.
        .
        Experience? In number of years, yes, but over-militaried, over-privileged and over-Washingtoned. That's it.
        .
        Not in the multiple experiences list context. What might fit? This voter sees zip, but that can't be right. Will get back to it.
        .......................................................

        Why is all this so useless?
        .
        Because internet access is necessary to this kind of analysis, and the audience or reader here has to have access to the internet even to tune in. Our voters are resource-deprived.

        .
        Computers are expensive, crash, people need tutoring to learn it, and money to get on it.

        Voters are out there who may well want to discuss these things, but have no way to do so. Look what they do have: Radio tainted. TV tainted. News papers tainted. Owners putting in what the shareholders want - puppies - instead of news that just may not serve their interests. Even this site, tainted by preference for one candidate over the other so far - but at least somebody can go look things up, at FactCheck, or other sites and make an independent decision.

        Yet this country depends on educated voters - and all this talking head time and amateur analyzing reaches only a small percentage of voters, the already wired. That serves the propagandists, who like their targets ignorant, susceptible.

        What to do? Mr. Obama, if this interests anyone in your administration, wire the country.

        Put that in the economic turnaround frenzy. Create jobs by recycling computers, train kids in the neighborhood to repair them, teach the people. Each one teach one, like the venerable Frank Laubach. Look him up. Adult literacy ://www.laubach-on.ca/laubachchronology.htm. Need adult computer literacy - including Mr. McCain. The internet is good for the aging brain. See //www.technewsworld.com/story/Researchers-Navigating-the-Web-Boots-Up-Your-Brain-64830.html. Wire the elders, and then he can go ahead and cut their prescription benefits without guilt.
        .

        By depriving our people of computers, even if it is an internet common storefront in the neighborood, we keep new ideas away from voters and diiminish their ability to think independently by fostering their ignorance. We take away the neutrality of media they can afford, and they are left with rumor and radio-TV media spin.

        There, at the door. Enter, that elderly lady at the McCain rally who said that Obama is an Arab. We should be ashamed of ourselves for letting that stuff fly. Where does the Constitution protect lies? See Joy of Equivocating, Political Free Speech Meme - Fabricating. As commercial speech? Fix it there, too.

        Put that in the economic turnaround frenzy. Create jobs by recycling computers, train kids in the neighborhood to repair them, teach the people. Each one teach one, like the venerable Frank Laubach. Look him up. Adult literacy ://www.laubach-on.ca/laubachchronology.htm. Need adult computer literacy - including Mr. McCain. The internet is good for the aging brain. See //www.technewsworld.com/story/Researchers-Navigating-the-Web-Boots-Up-Your-Brain-64830.html. Wire the elders, and then he can go ahead and cut their prescription benefits without guilt.

        There, at the door. Enter, that elderly lady at the McCain rally who said that Obama is an Arab. We should be ashamed of ourselves for letting that stuff fly. Where does the Constitution protect lies? See Joy of Equivocating, Political Free Speech Meme - Fabricating. As commercial speech? Fix it there, too.

        Tuesday, October 14, 2008

        Arabophobia and American Adults Left Behind. Meme Control.

        Arabophobia and American Miseducation
        Memes Spread the Word
        Computer Illiteracy and Voter Exploitation


        Leaving our Adults Behind
        .
        Where do Americans get their information.  We know there is a digital divide - about a third of American homes have no internet access.  Is that so? That leaves a third of American homes getting information from television and radio, and no independent fact checking ability. Newspapers are using each other's resources more and more, or using syndicated columns tilted this way or that.  Newspapers speak for a point of view. Is that so?  Again - no fact check.

        Voters who live in long-term residence facilities, or who attend Adult Day-Care -- similarly deprived.  At least our town library has students available on Saturdays to teach elders how to use computers, but it is not enough to counter television and radio.

        What difference?  Look at these topics: 

        Arabophobia. Islamophobia. Anti-Arab prejudice. Prejudice against all things believed to have Islamic roots. To what extent is that a function of few sources of information, and those with agendas.

        We are late waking up. The British noted and addressed this issue back in 2003 - see Neil Clark's article, "The Return of Arabophobia," in The Guardian 10/20/03 at  ://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/20/iraq.comment/.
        .
        .
        Trace the evolution of ethnic Arab "bogeyman" images, fostered in Western culture in the subjective interest of furthering its own religious, economic or political agenda - from the Crusades on - as well as the more rare event of objective provocation.

        Individuals of any ethnicity or faith may fit the bill of undesirables even in an objective sense, but not the population, is the gist. See PublicEye.org and its definitions - and how terms fall from ethnic description, into denigration, fear.

        Islam education information and diversity workshops at cities and industry, help - see ://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=151810 - the 2008 "Arab Detroit Plans Diversity Workshop: Arabophobia in America: Myth or Reality."  Colleges feel the issue dividing them - see Loyola University addressing the issue in 2007 at ://media.www.loyolaphoenix.com/media/storage/paper673/news/2007/10/17/News/Arabophobia-3036512.shtml/.

        What school curricula focus on the great flowering of Islamic culture and its tolerance, advances in the arts and sciences, mathematics, in Spain, the Golden Age 900-1200 AD, see p://www.peacefaq.com/golden.html. See also Spain Road Ways, Pursuing Dhimmitude in Berber-Islamic Spain..

        None of that reaches the uneducated, those with limited education or those without internet facility to find out information for themselves. Let the toxins fester - the Islamophobia, the Arabophobia - exploit the voter's ignorance. Let prejudice in unopposed.

        Is ignorant voter exploitation intentional?

        Of course. It works.  It serves up votes to those who can't or don't fact check. No elder left behind?  It serves the interests of the exploiters to have as many left behind as possible.  At election time, watch the party vote-getters holding their discussion groups, complete with absentee ballots.

        Look at the current political campaign, and the McCain voter so misled as to  express distrust of Barack Obama because (whisper) he's Arab.

        No, no, protested McCain on one hand, while patting the elderly lady on the back mentally with the other, and doing a thumbs up to the gallery, in his mind.

        But we caught it. And we know where suggestibility often leads  - action.

        How memes work. 

        Memes, cultural ideas, spread on their own, and are, here, to our peril. See FodderSight, Meme as Mind and Body Snatcher. People in crowds cry out for eradication of the Other. With impunity. Approval. The idea:  I would be pleased if this happens. Watch out.

        What to do. Back to the elderly lady.

        We pay for children not to be left behind.  But we foster leaving older people in the dust - their newspapers do puppies these days. And cut and paste syndications of approved views of quasi-news instead of analysis.

        FactCheck - Annenberg neutral, reliable. See ://www.factcheck.org/

        The only access to FactCheck is on a computer, yet how many senior citizens in low income, or even moderate income, brackets are computer literate.  Not even McCain. Talk about a disqualification. He has to get his information from others, not on his own. He is as open to manipulation as the folks lining the hallways at the Home. Is that true? Is his information controlled? He has to rely on "advisors."  No independent probing feasible. Great.

        Is keeping people ignorant, intentional? Again, sure. Keep the digital divide and reap the votes.

        Keep seniors ignorant, let them be swayed by rumor and radio and TV, see FodderSight, TV Constituencies, Streaming News.  Pass on the word that a candidate is sinister, not like "us," Muslim, an "Arab," all that, Chicago-tainted, even by implication a terrorist. Great. Those folks vote. Better yet, disregard their other needs while we are at it. See Framing Aging for Persuasion.

        Younger people may be just as susceptible, by culture, by surroundings, by make-up, by genetics or whatever, but they at least are more likely to have - at their disposal - the means to get more complete information, FactCheck, for example.

        Stop the game. Close the generation gap.

        Seniors deserve it. If our papers are to be allowed to betray the public trust, to get and put forth verifiable, neutral, complete news out to the readers; then we have to do this instead, to meet that trust another way:  we pay to put a computer in every house, several in any commons room in residence facilities, and wire everybody up. Teach seniors to use the internet. Give them the tools to decide for themselves. They have earned our regard, not our manipulation.  Close the digital divide.

        And searching on the internet improves brains - see "Internet Use: Good for the Brain," at ://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7667610.stm.

        But who wants to improve brains, improve quality of life, analytical ability.  Only those who stand to beneft from it - and that may not be your local politician who benefits more from people's ignorance.  Why seek to promote the interests of the computer illiterate? Then they learn to think, and we can't have that. So we see the fruits - the fruits of that policy.  The ones who show how duped they indeed have been, there at rallies, caught on TV, and to the quiet applause of those who keep them that way.

        The danger ongoing.

        The process of Arabophobia or any other phobia at the next level,  becomes demonization - with overtones of religious apocalypse for those so inclined, scapegoating. Demonizing. Old witchhunts. See this excellent discussion of many terms used to categorize populations, many -isms, at ://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/clerical-911.html#Apocalyptic%20Demonization/.

        Easy to turn an -ism or an -ist into a nonhuman.  Just apply the term and twist.Computer illiteracy makes it easier.  No factcheck.

        Level the playing field. Only with access to independent information can any group phobia be tamed. No elder left behind.

        Saturday, October 11, 2008

        Another Ethics Lawsuit Pending Against Palin - Recruitergate? Andree McLeod, Plaintiff

        Sarah Palin and a Second Ethics Action
        Pending:
        Any result would take more vetting, but start somewhere.

        See Anchorage Daily News: at://www.adn.com/front/story/486163.html;
        See article by Kyle Hopkins, Alaska Daily News, khopkins@adn.com, August 7, 2008

        Recruitergate?
        .
        Related issue or separate? Request to preserve emails filed in Superior Court, Third District, Anchorage, No. 3AN-08-10869 CI

        Update 10/15/08- see ruling at FodderSight, Update On Orders, Palin Must Preserve Private Emails Used for Government Business. Preserved emails to be retrieved, released. The case is Plaintiff Andree McLeod vs. Sarah in her official capacity.
        .................................................
        .
        With Troopergate resolved for now with a finding of unethical conduct by Sarah Palin as Governor for misuse of Office, see FodderSight, Palin as Ethical Violator, it is time to move the sights to a second ethical issue, case pending. A possible Recruitergate was filed in August 2008. Plaintiff Andree McLeod, a former state employee, filed an ethics action against Sarah Palin in her official capacity as governor. See Superior Court, State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage, Docket 3AN-08-10869 CI.*

        To get into the Alaska court system to see pleadings, you have to pay - see site at ://courtrecords.alaska.gov/ep/
        .
        State Constitution.

        The State Constitution requires that hiring of State employees shall be by merit. See ://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/acontxt/query=*/doc/%7Bt182%7D? (the State Constitution) at "Section 12.6 - Merit System: The legislature shall establish a system under which the merit principle will govern the employment of persons by the State."
        .
        Nature of the action.

        This action seems to involve an objection to the executive becoming involved in recruiting, using the governor's office to influence a particular recruitment hiring decision that excluded a particular applicant, a Palin supporter. The actions were to foster changes in some regulations or other requirements, and so get the Palin supporter back in line and, ultimately, hired. Recruitergate? Does the action have merit? Not known yet.
        .
        The hiree who ultimately lucked out, after the rules were changed, was someone who had hosted a fund-raiser. The action, we understand, takes the position that hiring should be on merit. Mutual discreditings are going on. Ms. Palin does not like Ms. McLeod, and vice versa. There are emails involved here, and Ms. McLeod has filed an action to require the State to preserve them. See also another account of the filing and background at ://www.juneauempire.com/stories/080808/sta_315789945.shtml

        Follow along. See Anchorage Daily News at ://www.adn.com/front/story/486163.html/.You can also access the actual motions filed online, by following the ADN site.

        While you are there, check to see if Alaska has complied with the federal Voting Rights Act yet? There was to be a report on bilingual voting assistance progress filed with the court about Sept 26. Search for theACLU case called Nick v. Bethel.** Note that written assistance is not required because the Yup'ik language was "historically unwritten," significant as to the Act, see ://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=396/, but oral assistance must be improved.
        .
        Emails again.

        More email issues in Recruitergate? Yes, with arguments pending. So it is not surprising that Sarah would not release her emails for use in the ethics violation, Troopergate. See FodderSight, Palin as Ethical Violator. Concealing emails may or may not have enabled her to escape an unethical firing finding, but who can tell.

        For the truly interested: for the latest motion, to order preservation of emails, go to
        • ://community.adn.com/sites/community.adn.com/files/McLeod%20v%20Palin%20Motion%20%20(10-2-2008)_0.pdf,
        • and more details at //community.adn.com/sites/community.adn.com/files/McLeod%20v%20Palin%20Motion%20%20(10-2-2008)_0.pdf
        Or just go to the Anchorage Daily News and follow dots. Merit to this or not? Who knows.

        An action had been filed for the emails back in June by McLeod, see ://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9620_sarah_palin_secret_email.html. That site says that McLeod sees herself as a government watchdog.
        ................................................
        * Docket numbers: The judicial district is first, AN for Anchorage; then the year filed, 08, then the chronological filing number, and the designation for this as a civil matter, CI.

        *Voting Rights - companion issue - whether the Governor has acted according to her oath to uphold federal law in the Alaska Voting Rights Act case, Nick v. Bethel and The State of Alaska, see this ACLU case pressing for compliance with orders for bilingual voting assistance: see

        Nick v. Bethel and the State of Alaska
        Federal District Court
        See ://www.narf.org/cases/bethel.htm

        Saturday, October 4, 2008

        The Faces of Talk: Argument vs. The Full Story. Round Barns, Central News Trough, and What Comes Out

        Journalism Lessons from Round Barns

        Where a Common Fact-Feed Trough for News is in the Middle -
        Why the Wide Spin That Comes Out The Other End 


        Give Everyone 
        Including Readers
        Access to the Central Trough


        See the media cattle. In round barns, they all feed from the same pool of information. But what comes out the other end, as reporting? Who among them is trustworthy, as keeping closest to the most relevant facts, in forming views.

        Need to 
        1. Provide independent common access to the Common Trough for everyone; 
        2. Ensure that the Common Trough is nutritionally complete to begin with; 
        3. Require labeling: what is fact reporting; what is opinion; what is sheer PR persuasion sales
        .
        A. The Agricultural Round Barn and Its Central Trough.

        First, go to Vermont and you will see round barns.
        .
        .Round barn, Vermont
        The arrangement in the round barn was efficient. 

        Put the feed in the center, with the cattle facing in. Butts out.
        .
        This way, the farmer could move around to milk everybody while using minimal time and energy to spread the food around.

        The structure is also strong.

        Round barns. Here are more: see ://www.dalejtravis.com/barn/barnvt.htm.

        Round barns are also in Wisconsin, we understand - and many in Wisconsin are the product of a particular farmer turned builder, Alga Shivers - an African American, born 1889. See ://www.wpt.org/barns/gallery_rd.html. That information is from a public TV show.

        The central feeding idea, however, has its perils.  Who determines if the feed is complete, nutritious, untainted.  Who monitors the trough contents. 
        .
        B. The Political-Current Events-Information - The 24/7 News Cycle is also a Round Barn.

        The round barns' central trough arrangement is like the information available to the world, thanks to all our speedy media and its feeders. 

        All the world's reporters, talk show hosts, media owners with agendas, feed at that trough. Do the facts really get in there, is the first concern.

        Let's say the facts do get in there.  Do the readers see it?  What do we get out of it, literally?  Only what the feeder-media-reporters decide to let out.

        Is there any semblance between facts in the trough, and what comes out after, after being digested by the feeders at the trough.  Is there any way for an outsider to get at that original central trough to see. Who chooses to chew on what.  How to know what was left out.

        C. Issue: Access to raw news.

        1.  How Access to the Central Trough for Everyone

        Without transparency somewhere as to the full facts, how to assess the reporters and their biases. Needed: Public access to all facts simultaneous with the reporters' presentations of it. This can be done by the papers or websites themselves, but mere referrals to factchecks is insufficient. We need a fully factchecked paper, a fully factchecked site itself. Not just piecemeal happenstance, "Let's look that one up."

         2. Ensure That It Is Nutritionally Complete

        This takes work.  You need to know the worldview of the person presenting information: 

        a.  Salespeople.  Commercial seller, political seller.  Both can puff and distort what they say about their product so long as it doesn't arise to "fraud" and that is hard to prove.  Neither is obligated to tell the truth. Their interest is in selling - themselves, their products.

        b.  People with legal backgrounds in the adversarial system of justice.  If a lawyer is talking, watch out. People with legal training follow different rules. Their rules may allow them to leave material in or tuck it away, and justify it as "argument" - their job - to persuade, not be responsible for full truth coming out. FN 1

        Maybe truth will out, maybe it won't. Evidence is not a fact until a trier of fact defines it as a fact. FN 2

        3.  What do you get most in media reporting? Facts, the full picture, or Argument, Opinion.

        3.1  Briefing as a Memorandum of Facts and Neutral Analysis vs. Briefing to Persuade, and Argument.

        People with legal training who report news, do not like facts.  They like Argument best, where you get to  make your case based on those parts of the facts that interest you. That is entertaining for them and gets the adrenalin up.

        The training leads to that.

        Same for sales people - there is lots of basic information; but get to the sales part.

        Sell, sell, sell.

        Even FDA caves in to the sell, consumers - who? 

        The Argument is the real persuasion part - slant, use inflammatory language to the point of being obnoxious, malicious and false, but not quite over the line. Give the facts in your own words, persuade, persuade, the person did not just "not notice" the light change, but "flagrantly, negligently, grossly negligently, inexcusably, ignoramously, purposefully focused on the hottie hunk in front of the pub instead of the color of the light..." Etc.

        Their clerks may like the analysis, the gathering of fact material, but the one up front?  Persuasion. Adrenalin. Is that so?  Not all the time, but watch for it.  

        Some with legal training are indeed problem solvers.  Others see that as against the ethic, that a lawyer is to represent the client in a jugular way, not coax a client one way or another.  Take orders and run with it.
        If you are a jugular attorney, you will aim to let a judge decide from the beginning:  rely on your spin and intimidation, and not spend much time beforehand on wimpy things like resolution.

        3.2  People with entertainment, theater, talk show host training, like Argument best.

        Their training leads to keeping attention, technique, body language, use of words, volume, all to persuade people to listen. 

        For both, persuasion is the game in Argument - not "information" and not "instruction" so that someone can make up own mind.  Everyone is to be steered.


        Some facts may support your case, but your job is to convince the "finder of fact" that is it indeed so. Then you win. So pump it. Pump it. Wink. Diversions work. Misstate and hope somebody believes it before the truth comes out. Truth? Hey - your job is to persuade.

        And if a mistruth is aimed your way, the only way to counter is with an equal countermistruth.

        3.3  People in politics also like argument best

        Politicians often use the Briefing approach to facts - the slant stage. Lay out the facts that support you, and only you, with only passing nods to the other position. The mission is to persuade, persuade. Weight. Overwhelm with your arguments.

        Remember, there are no facts until somebody "finds" facts - spins them so they are believed to be such, so be selective in the evidence around; spin, slant, all acceptable behavior in the world of briefing

        4. Nobody is giving full facts to the voters, yet voters are expected to judge issues and candidates.

        Persuaders are only doing what the culture tells or allows them to do.

        Can we increase voter information by education as to the kinds of persuaders they are listening to?  Is this so:  that approaches to life's issues are broadly, linear people, even machete people vs. web people. Linear thinkers. One place to get to, one way to get there, get out of the way, but if the line breaks, we all fall.  Web thinkers. Lots of ways to get somewhere - can turn here, turn there, take even a strand breaking, still fine.  Kinds of people. Reality One and Reality Two. The "must be on top;" vs. "there are other ways around this issue."

        See web thinkers vs. linear thinkers people, machete thinkers, at Joy of Equivocating, Anathema and Dialogue.

        5. What people - voters - need if a democracy is to sustain itself against power

        We, as deciders, need the same protections as a judge or jury. To hear all the evidence before either side begins the slant.

        People who make the decisions need the Memorandum approach available to them at all times - to be able to find somewhere, as to each major issue, easy, understandable, all the evidence around about it. Once that is in hand, the person may be able to see what is being selected in or out, and evaluate it. And make the ultimate decision - this candidate or that.

        The voter's job.

        But if the politicians give us all the information, maybe we will decide against the politician?

        ,
        So it is in the interest of the politician to hide the facts, make the Argument (see above) but without the voter being in the same position of a judge or jury having the full facts - and the voter, in contrast, never having heard it all ahead of time. With or without legal training, sales people of all ilks do the same - Obama, McCain, Palin, Biden. And your favorite religiosity spokesperson, cosmetician, pharmapusher.

        6. Why democracy is losing - some factors in the round barn concept.

        Newspapers used to be our source of fact, differing views of fact, de-facting fact, and investigations of supposed fact.  The common feed trough was there, newspapers dug through it, helped us understand.


        We are still in place around the trough, but have no confidence what is in it.

        And newspapers could care less, in their same positions in the round.  They are taking fact opportunitites, ignoring them and turning instead to the cheaper-to-produce entertainment, tabloid, cut and paste locals with advertising and sports and puppies and recipes; and when people have no other way to get all the facts and literacy is already shamefully low. We need reporters, investigative reporters, and to encourage reading - that people can afford, or find. We understand budget constraints, but not when those are loosed from media responsibility to the democracy, if there is any left.

        Do people really have the internet alternative to news, so the papers can justify the cop out?  No. Cities are not wired. Homes in cities and rural areas do not have access to the internet or even computers. Many if not most elderly, including McCain, can barely eke out an email, if that. All except McCain now disenfranchised from fact.

        Without that, are you listening Hartford Courant, your move from "news" to local and minimal cut and paste for the world, and 70% of column availability going to "lifestyle," democracy falls.

        We need a reliable source for full facts, and an internet Factcheck only works for the computer literate.

        Was this intended, in this election year? Leave urban un-wired people out of the fact loop?

        The evidence points to yes.

        7. So there we munch.

        We are in that round barn. We need a full news fact trough - and don't get it or are too uninterested or too uninformed to compel it. Others in the circle nose around and pick and choose what they will report or, if they are running, jump to and debate with the slant of Argument without our having the full Memorandum or other full source. And force on us their output.

        Nuts. We believe that political speech, as essential to democracy, must be held to a higher standard that commercial  - sales talk - speech where most anything goes if it works.  A reasonable objective full truth standard, something that bars misrepresentation - you figure.

        But that takes voters to do that, and government is keeping voters ignorant -  generations of bad schools, failing neighborhoods, all that, families and old people rich and poor unwired.. So who wins. Don't look in the mirror.

        Does the Family Six-Pack - of any income level - see the difference between commercial speech - the first amendment is very tolerant of puffing, fibbing, so long as the purchaser does not die - and other speech, where truth is valued more highly - the misleading factor.

        Not that we can see - as we watch pretty woman there on TV, running for a high office, and handling the podium with the same techniques that other posing ladies use while chirpily selling another used car, soothing the hood.


        The guy out there may not even care. Because - is this so -  he knows that she winked at him, and she wants him, and if he buys, she will be happy, and he made her so, and his other life is oh so bleak.

        Conditioning controlling the vote.  Pavlov's democracy.

        .......................................................
        FN 1 
        These folks have a view of facts that is not common sense.  The legal viewpoint stems from the "adversarial system" of "justice".  The obligation is to persuade the trier of fact that their client is right, and the other side is wrong.  There are few obligations to be sure the trier of fact has all the facts.  It is up to the other side to get their material in. There is an obligation to disclose a controlling case in the jurisdiction, however.

        Lawyers don't necessarily deal in "facts".  You may hear them say that there is no legal "fact" until a judge (or a jury) makes a "finding" of fact from the evidence.

        So they muster testimony and things and present them, thinking of these matters as "evidence".   But the people seeing and hearing it may think they are "facts".  Do a search for legal 'evidence' and see all the different kinds - documentary, demonstrative, circumstantial, eye-witness, hearsay. Have fun. Join a jury and hear them say "the evidence will show."


        FN 2
        Know what form of presentation you are dealing with. That is a clue as to the completeness of the presentation. Memorandum of Law, Full Brief, or Argument, or Opinion, but taken out of the context of the Memorandum or Full Brief.

        a. In a Legal Memorandum of Law, the person is informing the judge about the case and the law, and lays out in a neutral way. Completeness counts.  Facts, the evidence, the warts ones, the beloved ones, the ones for you and against you, in a chronological narrative type format. Law that supports each side, not just your own. Include any controlling case in the jurisdiction (it can always be "distinguished" or set apart from the case at hand); find cases in your jurisdiction, others that you think are persuasive, and federal, all that kind of thing. Cite cases against you from your jurisdiction that are dominant cases, and then you distinguish them. You show how they are different and why they should not be followed here. Your conclusions. What you are asking the judge to do in weighing the facts.

        b. In a Brief, the person is persuading a judge first and foremost. The person lays out Facts ("evidence"); and that is to include all the matters in evidence on which the lawyer relies, but this can be weighted in a way that support the client's case, with passing nods to the rest. Lay out the evidence against, but outweigh it with the supportive evidence.  Law - lay out what supports the client's case, and only those controlling cases against it from the jurisdiction need be included.  Argument - persuasion, apply evidence to the law