sunrise

Feynman, indeed, deserves all the credit. And, he would say that the reason that two people with disparate philosophies agree with him is that here he is saying something that we want to hear. We have convinced ourselves that we are not fooling ourselves. In other words, it is an example of confirmation bias. I read, "Blinded By The Right," many years ago. I am convinced that Brock intended that the book would be a catharsis for himself and that it would benefit many conservatives like himself, who he saw as sorts of lost souls, hoodwinked by slick political Svengalis. People who read his book as a sort of political "I told you so," only skimmed the surface of its value. He was, like Feynman, telling all of us that it is easy, even for an intelligent and analytical guy like he is, to fool ourselves. I took that lesson, to heart. I try to avoid the name calling and stick to ideas and facts. I do not fool myself into thinking that I always avoid labeling and some level of name calling. But, these mostly are fact driven. I don't support most of the solutions of the Radical (my definition of what radical is and yours appear to differ by degrees) Left, and see Bernie Sanders as a Bargain Rack Donald Trump. Hey, look I used a label to minimize the importance of not one, but two people with whom I disagree. But, I didn't call you names or label you. That is where I try to draw a very heavy line.

"The vehicle for conveying that substance is, truly, irrelevant." Nothing could be further from the truth than that statement. I had the luxury of listening to an interview with Rush Limbaugh, very early in his career His show was being picked up by KFI-AM in Los Angeles. In 1990 that was a very big deal. Because of my role as Western Regional Director for Public Affairs for the VA, I felt compelled to call in and correct something the left wing commentator, whose show was being pushed along with Rush's, said about Veterans. They both admitted that the language they used was designed to intimidate. Rush Limvbaugh went on to have a stellar career in entertainment-politics, while the left wing guy has more or less disappeared. Why?

In the book "The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives," Dana Carney uses a system designed to be similar to the Myers Briggs Assessment tool to establish common personality types of the majorities of these political groups. Not surprisingly, because a foundational principle of conservative thought is conformism, most conservatives tend to be introverted. Introverted people will "go along to get along," and are easily intimidated to do the bidding of blustery and threatening people. I believe that this is how radicals, not true conservatives, have hijacked almost an entire political movement. And, it is why few Republicans speak out against the demonstrably radical, not conservative, offerings of Donald Trump.

As I said, I was a government Regional Director for Public Affairs. That should tell you two things. The first, is that I know more than a little bit about the science and art of communication. The second is that I am probably an extrovert, in that I put myself out in public defending an organization that has been highly politicized since its inception, exposing it to more than its fair share of criticism. You practice a form of communication that is heavy on personal "insults, invective and pejorative. It is an accepted method of acting out in your peer group. And, it helps reinforce the intimidation of introverted conservatives. But, it conveys little to nothing of substance, concerning political policy or the perfomance of specific politicians or parties. And, using your inapt analogy of the language of Bronx, such insults only play well in homogenous groups. People in Manhattan reject it as crude and disgusting.

The depth of your misunderstanding about the truth is awe inspiring. The truth is not assigning behaviors or assuming knowledge that you can't possibly have. In reading your posts, I am reminded of the Myers-Briggs facilitator who warned us to not see the world from our perspective and make assumptions about others. For example a person who is extremely introverted will see everyone else as being extroverted, when a large number are introverted, just not to the degree he is. An extremist on a political scale is likely to see others of his ilk who are less so as being on the other side, moderates as being over the line and slightly opposites as being extremists. Read your own writing and reflect on where that might suggest you are viewed by others.

As for my Civil Service Public Affairs job, I would have been fired if I lied. And, I would not be an effective communicator for the government if the people who I hoped would come to me for answers thought I was lying. Political appointees can provide political answers, which may appear to be lies to some and manna from heaven to others. But, The Hatch Act carries fines, and probable firing for a Civil Service employee who does so. The act even puts limits on political employees. This has been in the news lately, with the pushing of the envelope by some on the president's staff.

Too often civil conversation and language is labeled "political correctness." There is a very practical reason for "civil' discourse. It is used in order to be clearly understood without confusion over intent. In history, we see examples of people trying to eliminate misunderstanding of intent. For example, the use of Latin then French as the official languages of diplomacy, were tried.

Finally, adding provocative adjectives does not make your argument stronger or your "facts," more valid. It just means that you lack the skill to communicate and convince without trying to dominate and intimidate. You read Feynman's statement and say you endorse it, while your actions are the embodiment of what he warns against. And, I mean that in the most positive and helpful sense. Peace.

You imagine that you know everything, even Title 5 and Title 38 of the United States Code which cover OPM laws and the laws of my former agency. Those laws produced regulations that I would bet my bottom dollar, you have never read. Those regulations required me to tell the truth or say nothing at all in my official capacities. That was a critical element of my job standards. You have never met me and know almost nothing about me. Yet, you present gibberish as an explanation of how the system works from a void, and argue that it is fact. Your perceptions are just that. Gibberish. When you take the time to educate yourself and can present irrefutable facts, you might say something valuable. Just a question. When my late brother Jim, a Goldwater Republican, worked for NSA as an analyst with an emphasis on Chinese military communications, was everything he said a lie? Finally, the only reason I seem condascending to you is that I present a little information that is factual in an authoritative way and you appear to not know much. I am not talking down to you. You are looking up from a pit created by your own undereducation and demonstrated reisitance to knowledge. It is almost as if you are allergic to the truth.

And said not even to you, for that matter.

I have to get back to this thread. Normally I don't read your drivel past the first line, but I noticed an ongoing progression to one of your patented outbursts, so it might be worth snoring through the walls of copypaste.

You can't help yourself, can you?
So one dimensional, so predictable.