Where's the Rage?

[Asher Kelman]

I disagree -- Colleen answered your first question in detail. Her response to your second question is what is referred to as "rhetorical question," usually posed without the expectation of a reply to illustrate the obvious in the face of a non-sequitur or sophomoric statement.

Back to Palin and the debate. I saw it differently than you, IMHO she trounced Biden. Poor old Joe kept trying to steer back to his prepared talking points by saying, "But I want to get back to..." He did this whenever he was asked a question he didn't want to answer, and frankly made him look like the same old Washington politician we've seen for the past 50 years. By contrast I found Palin's home-spun manner a breath of fresh air.

Hi Jack,

I'm glad you found that there are no closed doors to a guy who's appreciates the infinite shading of light possible on just a simple pear set on the table for a still photo.

Here is a quick example. Again, I realize this effect may not appeal to everybody, it is where our indivual preferences come into play.

This shot was done with the Cooke SF lens I mention above, but used at about a 1:2 reproduction ratio on 8x10 film. The result was scanned and converted to B&W. It is hard to tell from this small jpeg, but there is very sharp detail in a very thin plane on the pear skins, which fades to the cottony softness I was referring to above as you move your eye around the surfaces of the pears. You can see the effect pretty readily in the edge of the plate and on the wood grain of the table.

(Note: In the end, this image did not work for me as I found the harsh black diagonal from the background darkness behind the pear too prominent and distracting.)

Cheers,

Jack

It's that appreciation that must extend to our sorting out of ideas and positions, social and political. Given the tendency for us to go for a bimodal distribution of values, (with us or against us, "disloyal to our troops", appeal to the rich v. middle class, is or isn't a "Maverick"), is for "Change", we’re not mentally geared up to release anger where it should be triggered. The politicians demanded and encouraged abolition of redlining as racist and economic tests for loans are downgraded. People took advantage and bought overpriced homes beyond their means. So who is to blame? The politicians, some with cozy salaries (before or afterwards from Freddie Mae and Mac), the Real Estate Industry in conspiracy with the banks, shoving loans where they made no business sense or else the very people who took the loans knowing they didn't have the salary to maintain payments after the low interest teaser was past.

So how have we reacted to this? Each side takes a complex problem and chooses a one-line talking points excuse for their party's position. Being so simplistic, each is flawed.

The failure we have is in how we look at problems with multiple parameters and dynamics. By having doctrinaire, essentially "faith-based" (where the faith is in the political party), answers to complex existential challenges, we throw away our strengths. That is the superiority of rational argument and testing of assertions.

The debates were set up to exclude probing follow-up. Instead, questions were sidelined with folksy chat or the cover of unstoppable popularism. At a time when we were facing a 700 billion dollar diversion of our funds, the candidates did not provide leadership for alternative solutions. Essentially, all that has been done is bribe reluctant legislators with earmarked funds for their districts and cronies. But where's the rage?

The petty selective rage about "who said what when" is what should concern us. Someone steals the bank and we argue about which is better, "Sweet & Low" or "Equal"!

We have one charming man, who runs on the basis of being different and clean but seems awfully like a facebook personality who's job is to be famous. For sure, he's not Paris Hilton, but neither has done much public good with the resources handed them in the past 8 years. We have another fellow who's like the last guy standing on a reality show who didn't happen to be caught with his pants down!

All we need is ask someone's political affiliation and we'll know, with 80% confidence, how they "rated" the performance of each debate. It's easy as we simply do not allow ourselves room for rational analysis. Loyalty trumps logic in most cases. Bush was 80% correct when he said, your either "with us or against us", since we hardly ever make an independent evaluation but go for our party's line.

If we can at least recognize this handicap we all share, then perhaps we might be able to bring ourselves to the debate prepared to ditch them all. At the very least we might be incensed with those who claim to be on our side but in reality are all incompetent, scoundrels or worse!