Smarter Than Thou!

A REAL END TO RACISM?

  WAY back, in the 1950’s a guy named Adlai Stevenson ran for president, twice, and lost twice.  He had a terrific opponent in Eisenhower, the top general of World War II.  Adlai was not the best of candidates, being rather distant and “intellectual.”  Some experts felt that he had another massive defect.  He was divorced.  The feeling was that the American public would not vote for a man who had failed in marriage.  Maybe this was so. 

    Another past candidate was Alfred Smith, a former governor of New York.  He lost to Herbert Hoover.  Many believed that he lost because of another personal defect.  Smith was a Catholic.  It was felt that many suspected that a Catholic president might place the USA under the direct rule of the pope.  Of course since that time a Catholic, at least officially, has been elected.  And another president (Reagan) was divorced before being elected, and reelected.  This means that these characteristics are no longer relevant, or at least not the negative impediments they once were. 

    It may not be true that “any boy can grown up to become president,” but certainly the pool of potential candidates has been expanded.  And the election of Obama has shown that simply being Black (or half) will not disqualify someone.  In other words, the issue of race has been eliminated, pretty much, as has Catholicism and being divorced. 

    This means, I hope, that Black candidates will, in the future, be judged by their character, values and programs, and not by their color.  It is my belief that many Americans voted for Obama solely because he was (half) Black.  I am not referring to other Blacks.  I mean White Americans who needed to show, by their votes, that they, and the nation, were no longer prejudiced. 

    And this may mean that the next time around, perhaps in 2012AD (as well as in the future), people will vote for what is best for the nation, and not from some sense of guilt or desire for reparations.  We can hope, can we not? 

    And I always thought that Obama was good for nothing.   Maybe not. 

    And good for many things is the publication “Analysis and Explanations.”  You may wish to subscribe.  

 

THE SUPREME SILLINESS

   POLITICS has a tendency to produce silly statements, or silly experts.  They are often not recognized as such, perhaps because the context of politics creates its own kind of universe, with it own kind of internal criteria.  It is, in my opinion, somewhat similar to those artificial laugh tracks that are inserted into TV comedies.  We do not really notice them as horribly artificial, as we come to accept them as “natural.”  Thus, the political pundits tend to repeat each other, literally, without reason, as does the mechanical “audience,” which laughs, also literally, for no reason.  I now intend to expose one cliché, probably the silliest one.

    The conventional wisdom, going back, at least, to the time of Nixon is this:  “the cover-up is always worse than the crime.”  It is true that Nixon resigned, in disgrace.  I lived through the event, but paid no attention, because it was terribly boring.  The conventional view is that Nixon lost his office because he tried to cover-up his role in the Watergate affair.  The implication is that, somehow, if he “had come clean” he then would have survived the crisis.  I doubt it.  The establishment hated him too much to allow him to remain in office. 

    But is it really worse to deny and to hide, rather than to confess?  It is true that various politicians have been caught trying to hide scandals, and have suffered.  However, I ask:  how many attempts at hiding scandals have been successful?  That is, what percentage of attempted cover-ups has worked, and thus the information never became public, and the politician saved his career?  By definition this number is not knowable. 

    No one can declare one choice to be better than another if the success rate of the second choice is unknown.  This is not like a horse race where every result is witnessed and recorded.  That is, it is very, very probable that the better course is always to deny, to hide, and to cover-up.  Yet the experts continue to wonder why the politicians “never learn their lesson.”  I continue to wonder why those experts are so stupid. 

    Maybe it is because they are not reading “Analysis and Explanations.”  Subscriptions can be obtained by contacting us. 

 

 

JUAN FOR HISTORY

   JUAN Williams is a news commentator and analyst.  He worked at National Public Radio and works at Fox Cable News.  He was definitely a Liberal, but (apparently knowing that Fox would continue to pay him if he did so) he would make occasional pro-conservative remarks.  After one of these NPR fired him.  This caused a mini controversy.  I would like to add my own comments, in order to provide some order in a world of confusion. 

    The objections to his being fired centered on his right to freedom of speech.  After all, the reasoning went, he was hired to give his opinions.  Thus it is unfair to fire him when he did, simply because his boss did not like what he said.  He has a right to freedom of (his own) speech. 

    Really?  Does this mean that people hired to comment (or write) can never be fired?  Do they have jobs for life?  Or do they need, like all employed people, to satisfy their bosses, continuously?  I presume that Juan had some kind of contract (which he voluntarily entered into!), giving his boss a right to fire him, whenever she felt like doing so, even if it were only that their astrological signs conflicted.  If there were no contract then she could fire him whenever she felt like doing so.  In other words she was simply exercising HER freedom, based upon her right to fire him whenever she felt like doing so.  Freedom that eliminates another freedom is not freedom, and this is why no one really has it.   

    The defense of the freedom of Williams, if it were a principle, must, in order to be taken seriously, also defend her freedom.  Or is freedom of speech allowed only to express feelings, and never to bring about a real change?  That is, it is to be taken as seriously as the speech of three year olds?  That is, are people with authority to be denied their “right,” simply because what they say is unpopular, and can actually produce a consequence?  Are the important and powerful people less entitled to express their views than the lower ranking employees?   

    Some have objected that, because NPR receives some government support, it is in a different category.  That is, its operation should be “restricted” in a way to prevent such “unfair” dismissals.  However, this would mean that NPR could work only under legal restrictions and formal government censorship.  This would prohibit, in advance, decisions by its officials, until they got congressional approval, and/or they would be subject to post facto court decisions.  In other words, to defend Juan Conservatives are forced to imitate Stalin, and to deny freedom of speech, as a principle, to any who do not curry favor with the ruler.  This is exactly what happened.  Juan displeased his local Stalin.  So what is everyone complaining about?  It is all a matter of who is saying what, and who likes what is being said.  The concept of freedom is simply not a factor. 

    The simple fact---the open secret denied by everyone, except me---is this.  No one wants any real right of freedom to speech.  Very few of us are intelligent enough, or honest enough, to admit it.  You should be one of the few.  And this is why you read this, is it not?       

Feel free to do the right thing, and subscribe to the "A&E."  Contact us to find out how.  

 

 

THE ENDLESS CAMPAIGN(S)

   IT is quite conventional to complain that, as soon as one national election (such as the recent one) is over, the next one begins.  That is, the experts hold that the “real” presidential campaign begins, at the minimum, two years(!) before the actual election takes place in 2012AD, and maybe even for the one in 2016AD.  This usually means that potential candidates are accepting money from certain “interests,” traveling around the country giving talks on serious subjects, signing books they never wrote, etc.

    The money is accepted from organizations such as political action committees, civic organizations, unions, meetings, annual conventions of certain industries, etc.  Of course these potential candidates will need to hire speech writers, ghost writers, pollsters, drivers, caterers, security, transportation captains, technicians, make up people, advisors, etc.  They do not simply “show up” somewhere, give a speech, and go home. 

    I wrote above that these activities induce complaints by the pundits.  They seem to be annoyed that they have to report on what is happening.  Maybe it is that they are bored by the repetitive speeches, and are tired of following these people around the country.  However, my view is that we should rejoice over these, literally, endless campaigns.  I shall explain. 

    The campaign that never ends is a pump endlessly circulating money.  The money comes from rich people, unions, wealthy industries, vested interests (e.g. pro and anti abortion groups), etc.  And where does this money go?  It goes to the pizza boy who delivers pizza to the people who man the phones and se up the chairs in auditoriums.  It goes to the technicians who set up the podiums and microphones.  It goes to motel owners.  In other words, it increases employment among the common guys. 

    So, as it does, why would anyone object to what is continuously giving the small guy employment and extra money?  I say, “Carry on, candidates, and never say ‘cease,’ as long as there is still one underemployed Chinese food delivery boy.”  And so should you. 

And subscribing to the "A&E" provides partial employment to the US Post Office workers, when they deliver it to your home.  Feel obligated to subscribe.  

P.S. On a personal note, I shall be away for approximately two weeks until mid-November.  I hope that we all can manage to get along without each other until then.

P.S.  I was totally wrong on the result of the Congressional elections.  Let us hope that the newly elected Republicans will attempt to do nothing, but oppose.  This is how they can best do their best.