Comments - Part IV

The Practice: Having a license to practice does not confer the wisdom to do so.

Writing is Like Painting

It is a fact that many, many folks take up painting at some time in their lives.  Taking lessons, and practicing, a fraction of these become reasonably good – even to the point of making sales and perhaps winning a contest or two.   All the while keeping their day job. The same may be said for writing – probably without the lessons.  Both are methods of artistic expression, and became an outlet for their active minds.   Yet, each applies dual and independent mental channels.   Both have common features which include messaging, composition, technique, and tricks of the trade.

Most of these people, on their artistic journey, usually discover just how far they remain from true mastery, much less genius.  True genius is monogamous.

Some do both with varying success, though one talent normally exceeds the other.  The best example may be Winston Churchill, a gifted writer and painter, actually also an orator.   As well, I have a friend in California gifted in both these orthogonal directions (MKM).

Quote of the Day
“There is no problem the mind of man can set that the mind of man cannot solve.”
― Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

Dr. Johnson, while this is a wonderful statement quoted many times and even in a Sherlock Holmes movie, “Dressed to Kill,” it is quite untrue.  I will report more on this later, in a piece called “Impossible Problems.”  It is quite possible to pose many questions or problems that have no solutions.  Opinions and conjectures, yes, but no solutions or resolutions. I'll show you how to make impossible, seemingly erudite, questions.  They can be philosophical, economic, political, and other topics. 

Mistakes vs. Counter-Mistakes

A gross and over generalized reading of historical conflicts seems to indicate that where there was a reasonable parity of opposing resources seems to indicate the winner obtains partly due to brilliant actions the one and deplorable mistakes by the other.   

Victory in conflict seems to involve a total contemplation of options, a combination of tactical and strategic decisions, and a resolve in those decisions.  It is nearly a scholarly effort with intellectual considerations and a practicum of decisions. It becomes a balance between luck and mistakes. Luck by the one often infers a mistake by the other.  Yet, the possibility of mistake and counter-mistake often yields inconclusive results.

Brilliance of decisions implies and instinctive vision of what to do in usually a rather low information setting.   It also suggests mistaken, erroneous, and blunders by the opponent.

I would say that if one group intends harm to another, the leader (or general) of the first should be of the first rank.   Then of course history tells us, there is the true menace – or genius, that person who gives orders to the general and often makes incalculable mistakes.

"I" as a rhetorical issue
When I was a kid growing up, General Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964), World War II general, was often critiqued for his famous statement upon leaving the Philippines on account of the Japanese invasion, "I shall return."  His intent was noble, but the effect was not.  Much of his remarkable generalship was lost to this single statement.   Using the "I"  is most risky when what you have done or are doing depends on the lives, blood, sweat, tears, and toil of others.  Most important leaders prefer to use the collective "We."    

If, as a leader, you say "I went to the parliament to demand action on this pending legislation," that is one thing.  However if, as a leader, you say, "I have destroyed our nation's threat,"  that is quite another. Hollow and shallow it appears.  It may be best not to take the credit directly when you can achieve the credit indirectly. The calculus of leadership rhetoric solely on this point is tricky.

Being articulate does not imply being intelligent. Appearing to be honest does not apply you are honest.  Obfuscation is the bane of the voter.

Comments - Part III

This is a continuing addendum to http://usednotes.blogspot.com/2013/04/comments-ii.html

Lois Lerner -redux.  Yesterday, Lois confronted the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee  chaired by Darrell Issa.  She made an opening statement. In it she asserted “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.”  She then took the 5th - and refused to answer further inquiry about her tenure at the IRS.  It appears such a statement opens her to questions  relevant to her statements.  It was all theater.  Yet, one must inquire why her lawyer permitted such a statement, opening her to future inquiry.  One guess is that her lawyer was an operative arranged for this amazingly loyal servant to her position.  She got really bad advise, possibly the subject of an upcoming suit.   Unless, of course, she is "willful." I guess one cannot claim total innocence of one's activities without venting and opening the same activities to legal scrutiny.  Lois is either totally stupid or  totally used, or both.

I am thinking that loyalty is a key component to rising up within the government structure.  Loyal folks can be used and discarded, and they never even know it happened.  Under the bus?  That would be easy.  Lois finds herself lodged in a trash compactor.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html#ixzz2U6uZ1Uoq

 
There is no Tea Party.  In fact, there are too many tea parties.  There is no UTP – a Unified Tea Party.  Each is an independent agency of action for the situations within the USA – mostly very conservative and fiscally very much so.  The far left, assumed not to be you, wishes to lump them all as a single entity for attack.  This makes the demonization possible and credible.  The far right, assumed not to be you, wishes to lump them as a viable force to oppose Administrative goals and programs.   I have never seen such grassroots organizations assemble toward a common purpose.   The left wishes to denigrate them; the right wishes to co-opt them.  Yet they struggle to remain independent and to focus on the issues important in their views.  It would be wonderful to see such a spontaneous organization  of supportive groups pertaining to, for example, the Affordable Care Act.  This is how our democracy works.   It is the only way democracy can work, maintain, and sustain.

The President has not the time.  There have been numerous scandals within the current administration.  There are the AP and now Fox wiretapping, the IRS targets, the Benghazi fiasco.  Excepting the latter, which just seemed to have mushroomed, managing these takes time, consideration, and operation.  Therefore there must be someone or some group at the switches of control.   The President is now confronted with multiple streams of damage control.   

The President wants to be exclusively concerned with his programs of social justice.  

I feel certain he is at his whit’s end of what to do.   When all the strings were taught, when all the angles were calculated,  when most of the press was quiescent, and when all the agents were on board, all was calm - swimmingly.  Now valuable time is expended on damage control – seemingly out of control.  Multiple stories have been created, but are somewhat conflicted.  The conflicts themselves, regardless of content, have become news.  We saw this control issue earlier with the numbers of unemployed and jobs created via the stimulus bill.  Eventually, on this small issue all cognizant parties were on the same page, i.e. issuing the same numbers.  Elementary this was compared with bigger matters now afoot.  

We may say these inferences are made within the weak topology of national politics. 

 ---------------------------------------

Under the bus.   It seems Lois Lerner, division chief at the IRS accused of targeting conservative groups applying for tax exempt status,  must testify before Congress about the IRS scandal.  She plans to take the fifth - to avoid self incrimination.  This means she is cognizant that any words of her  testimony may be used in a criminal prosecution against her.  This means she views there are indictable offenses.  This implies she is now “under the bus.”  Another loyal servant of the system is sacrificed to the greater good of her higher-ups.   It is not the first time. It will not be the last.  It appears that a bad spot to be in is above the mid-level yet below the inner core.  Such folks are destined for the China Box. 

Jay Carney.  There are multiple reports that Presidential press secretary is at the end of his credibility both with the press and also with the administration he represents.  On the face of it, he is a decent person fully supporting the administrative position.  Yet he seems to equivocate. How long can he sustain, maintain his situation?  What should Jay do?  I'll bet at even odds he doesn't know.

Apology.  There is a difference between an apology and and expression of regret. (according to Doug Shulman, commissioner of the IRS, as indicated by John Cornyn, senator)  Former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman told a Senate panel he was “dismayed” and “saddened” after reading an inspector general’s report last week that concluded agency employees wrongly targeted conservative groups seeking a tax exemption.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-scandal-doug-shulman-91665.html#ixzz2Ty7YOV96

While many of us think this is splitting hairs, it does illustrate how some officials regard and have interpreted their knowledge of the current IRS procedures.

Extreme.  Even the extremists don't really believe the extreme of their positions, unless they're quite stupid.  They just like to hear it.  Going extreme, whether politically, scientifically, socially, spiritually, or even philosophically gains a few inches of attention.  It fades quickly.

---------------------------

Domino theory.  Everyone believes in domino theory, even while ridiculing others who seem to make domino-like conclusions.  Domino theory is mankind’s natural inductive thinking combined with bad-outcome worries.

Flipping the classroom without proper research or even testing may amount to ripping apart the nation’s institution of education, and allowing it to slip headlong to ineffectuality.  Note: Flipping the classroom means that students are assigned videos to watch and problems to consider before coming to class.  Class time is then substantially devoted to problem solving.  Recall when you were a student and were assigned readings, etc before coming to class.  Same as "flipping" but without the glitter of videos.  Didn't work then. Won't work now.

The Parties. Democrats clearly have many legislative ideas and like to pass laws or make regulations.  They should never be trusted to execute or operate their adventurous programs.  Their solution for every glitch is invariably to throw upon it more money, regulations, and/or  more staff.  Republicans generally prefer no legislation unless closely targeted to an exigency of their choosing. Would that compromise would come back in fashion. Any hope here?

Growing up. Some children merely grow up, having never been properly raised.   Unless…  you count as being raised to be the net effects of TV-sit-coms, video games, social contacts, and social media (twitter, Facebook, and texting). 

Adults. For many adults there is little knowledge of morality, or of ethics, or have any type of moral compass.  For many adults, too many, there is little more to life than grabbing what you can get regardless of injury.  It is the fashion of the day and moreover has been accepted in general, though rarely in specifics.

Tuning elections.  It used to be those uninterested in government didn’t vote.  Interested and informed citizens did.  No longer.  Political parties are now summonsing and transporting disinterested, uninformed, unknowledgeable, and uneducated citizens to the polls with assumption they will vote in a particular manner.

Messaging: The new communication tools of our new age.   Letters?  Forget them.  Too much work.

• Twitter.  Akin to a dog's bark or a cat's meow, with all the depth therein implied.  Even politicians are into this.  A perfect communications medium for these types.

• Texting. Adding a useless ultra-brief comment upon a stream of ultra-brief comments.  Suitable for teens, deplorable for adults.  All this with a new "texting" lexicon.  But great for brief messages that need to be brief.   As one said, "He was thankfully brief and had every reason to be so."

• Facebook.  A celebration and promotion of oneself, with facts disregarded, even ignored.  Some actually give news, a small plus in the exabytes of posts.  

• email.  By many an antiquated tool usually indicating a one-to-one message.  Often deprecated by students as having little value.