Re: Perfect PC Election

Because it is a "Perfect PC Election", the application of Political Correctness Calculus will perfectly predict who is going to win!

Step 1:  Throw out the Straight Christian White Male Republican.  This is one party California.  He'll be lucky if he doesn't get rounded up by the PC police,  sent to a re-education camp and water boarded.

Step 2:  Throw out the Guilty White Liberal Progressive un-White guy.  He will realize that he doesn't deserve to win the election because of his "white skin privilege", and will confess that he's not sure that he is NOT a racist.

Step 3: Throw out the Black Female Nuclear Engineer Democrat Activist.  Without doubt, she will nail down the Black Female Nuclear Engineer vote in the district, but beyond that, what's left.  Planned Parenthood aborted half the black babies in the district years ago, so they won't be showing up at the polls.

Step 4: Throw out the Hispanic guy.  Hispanics won't go to the polls because those "wascally wepublicans" shut down the government, refused to pass immigration reform, and will be patrolling the polling stations looking for Hispanic illegal immigrants.

Step 5: The last man standing is the Asian guy. Asians know how to get to the front of the line.  They know how to squeeze the tomatoes at Whole Foods, and leave the soft squishy ones for the meek white people who have been told that tomatoes that are too good cause global warming, which is another reason that white people don't deserve to win elections. 

The winner is:  Kansen Chu!

Who needs polls?! Who needs thumb sucking endorsements by newspaper editors who fret about the racial insensitivity of Washington Redskin football fans?

Ground hogs can predict the coming of spring.  Political correctness predicts California elections.

We actually don't need voters anymore.

The Perfect PC Election

The Perfect PC Election

Oh, great!

The perfect PC election.

One Asian.
One black.
One Hispanic.
One Guilty White Liberal Progressive un-White.
One Actual Authentic Straight White Male Christian Conservative.

I predict that a "minority" will win.

Speaking of Global Warming

It seems that there have been a rash of intellectuals declaring that the debate over "Global Warming" is over.

Not the least significant is the Los Angeles Times letters to the editors page.  They have recently declared that they will no longer publish letters from global warming "deniers".

The reason, or course, is that it is (take your pick)

a. settled science

b. the consensus finding of 97 percent of scientists

c. proven by the decline in polar bear population

d. a gusher of tax money from "carbon taxes"

If there was an official debate over global warming.  You would have thought the newspapers would have reported on a contest so consequential for the future of the planet.

But, no.  Nothing in the newspapers.  Nothing in the internet archives.

No stories about "Raucous Crowds Supporting or DIssing Global Warming Debaters".

Only, second string copyists reporting, after the fact, that a debate on global warming was held, and the Warmists won.

You would have thought that, in the day of televised, competitive everything -- Football, Wrestling, American Idol, Spelling Bees -- someone, somewhere might have thought of making a television buck on the great global warming debate.

But no.  The intellectuals decided to have the debate in a closet, and then report to us that the people who agreed with them won -- and require us to send them money.

The fundamental “paradigms” that distinguish “Left” and “Right”

The “reality paradigms” of "left" and "right" are definitely different, but generations of discrediting, and counter-discrediting have really obscured the fundamental “realities” and premises of each side.

The “reality paradigms” of left and right are VERY, VERY ancient and are rooted in the emergence of civilization.

The primal reality of human civilization is the “hunter – gatherer”.    People lived in small bands and made their living by supplying their immediate needs by killing or taking what was at hand in their unbounded hunting grounds. 

The key elements of this paradigm are:

• The fundamental survival group was the small band, often “ethnically” related
• They made their living by “taking” from the surroundings
• The surroundings were “common” and perceived as unlimited
• Successful hunting required a degree of teamwork and cooperation
• The small band looked to an “alpha male” to lead them in successful hunts
• Purportedly, successful hunts were shared “equally” among the band
• Other bands were often looked at as hostile competition and even as “prey”. Wikipedia remarks that there is evidence of widespread cannibalism among pre-historic “hunter-gatherer” cultures.
• Successful hunting often required deception, camouflage, and surprise

At some point in time, ancients mastered agriculture and herding, which gave rise to a different "reality paradigm": “farmer – herders” .

 

The key elements of this paradigm are:

• The fundamental change was “deferring current consumption for future benefit”, i.e setting aside seed corn and breeding stock
• This resulted in the notion of “private property” because farmers needed to own fields and herders needed to own flocks
• They made their living be multiplying their assets within the domain of their “private property”
• The fundamental survival group was the “family” because accumulated property need to be passed on
• Successful farming and herding required bartering and trade to dispose of surplus production
• Each family unit probably had a “patriarch” who determined inheritances
• The patriarch undoubtedly made decisions about how much production to consume, how to share it, and how much to set aside for the future
• Other bands or groups were looked at as potential trading partners rather than prey.
• Regulating trade and barter inevitably required customs and rules about “fair dealing” and “honesty”

I think these two very different “survival and reality paradigms” endure to this day under the guise of “politics”.

 

If you map these traits to the traditional understanding of “conservative” and “liberals”, there seems to me to be a distinct alignment between ancient culture and current politics.

My supposition is that this will ultimately be useful, especially for conservatives, to understand these paradigms because it will help them realize that there is a real difference between conservatives and liberals in their grasp of reality, and that intellectual persuasion isn’t going to change the appetites of those who look at you as “prey” and look at your property as part of the “commons” and theirs for the taking.

 

Eugenicizing the "least educated" white people

An interesting article that illustrates two truths that the People Inside the Bubble simply don't know:

1. Those people labeled as "white people" by the Bubble-ists are NOT benefiting from "white skin privilege";
2. Poorly known (or cunningly unspoken) social, political, or cultural factors are working to selectively reduce the population of "white people" disproportionately compared to populations of other skin group demographics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49114733/ns/us_news-#.UFx_s41lQ19

'Alarming': Life span drops sharply for least educated whites

"The steepest declines were for white women without a high school diploma, who lost five years of life between 1990 and 2008, said S. Jay Olshansky, a public health professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the lead investigator on the study, published last month in Health Affairs. By 2008, life expectancy for black women without a high school diploma had surpassed that of white women of the same education level, the study found. "

Truth, Or a Reasonable Facsimile

http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/9_13_12_politics_media_relations_scandal/

Political Crisis Management 101

Posted by Rich Robinson on Thursday, September 13, 2012


Your elected office holder has just been photographed coming out of a seedy hotel, cigarette dangling, tie askew and he’s carrying a sheep. You are tasked with a public response. What do you do?

 Here are the options:

Denial. That’s not my Senator and that’s not his sheep. The stronger the denial the better, but denial is not really an option if the facts are true. Always be careful that if you are denying public official behavior, you are absolutely sure it did not occur.

Non-denial denial. That doesn’t appear to be my Senator or his sheep. The qualifier allows you to backtrack later on, while denying the substance of any charge up front. This tactic is particularly handy if the facts ultimately prove your Senator is innocent.

Obfuscation. Depends on what you mean by Senator and can you be sure it was a sheep? This puts doubt in the mind of the accuser, gives you more time to get the facts and is really a stalling tactic. At some point, you’ll have to answer the question. (See, “It depends on what your definition of “is” is.)

The noble stall. A very effective technique. A mistake has occurred and as soon as we ascertain the facts we will get back to you. The “catch-all” is the fact a mistake has been made without attributing who made it. The spokesperson retains their credibility while allowing them time to figure out what the hell your Senator was thinking.

Proudly accept responsibility. My personal favorite. That’s my Senator, that’s his sheep. You got a problem with that?

This is really the Ollie North approach. You’re caught red handed doing something illegal or unethical but you turn the moral tables around on your accusers. “I did it, I’m glad I did it and if I get a chance I would do it again.” This is particularly effective when there is a higher moral reason for the behavior. It is especially effective when given immunity from prosecution for your testimony. In fact, if under immunity it is best to admit everything you’ve ever done in your life. Even if they prosecute you later, there is a good chance it will get kicked on appeal.

Mea Culpa. That was the Senator and he is extremely sorry for any pain he has caused his family, constituents and colleagues. Ghandi said, “A sincere apology, followed by a promise never to do the act again is the highest form of contrition.” The public is cynical, but not mean-spirited. This form of response is designed to give the Senator time to rebuild his image before the next election.

No comment. This is not a response, it is an admission. It must be used as a last resort only when answering any question that would cause you to lie. Lying is never an option.
It is usually the lie or cover-up that causes people to resign from office. Unless the initial act is so heinous or illegal it cannot be forgiven.

 In the final analysis, whether your elected official has to resign will usually depend on their initial response. In this case, a public official could usually survive politically—unless the sheep talks.

 Rich Robinson is a political consultant in Silicon Valley.

Rush Analyzes Silicon Valley CEO's

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/17/policy_and_the_partisan_divide

"I would love to know why certain people who I think (by virtue of the rest of their lives) are demonstrably intelligent... These people are self-starters, and they are entrepreneurs. They're very successful. I asked myself, "How can they intellectually not just support Obama, but fund-raise and bundle for him?" A lot of high-tech people in Silicon Valley come to mind when I think of this.

There are answers to this.

Let me give you an example. Let's take, for now, a nameless CEO, although I have a person in mind. This person I'm gonna describe exists. Let's take this CEO of major, major Silicon Valley Internet company. This CEO is a huge Obama bundler. Huge! I mean, he throws fundraisers at the family abode, raises money, donates money, bundles money. He is totally devoted to Obama. It can't be because of Obama policy. It simply can't be!

 Obama's policies are diametrically opposed to every economic philosophy implemented by this person. It simply cannot be policy, this partisan divide. When I saw this religion breakdown -- 22% more people who don't go to church vote for Obama; 24% more of people who do vote for Romney; and the people that go once a week, now and then, it's evenly split -- that's cultural. There is no question. Now, what makes cultural? What comes under that umbrella? Well, it's any number of things, including religion.

 But it's also pop culture. It's movies, television shows; what's cool, what's hip, who's smart, who isn't smart. Branding. All those things are what come to the fore. So I've been asking myself: What would make otherwise smart people support somebody who's got policies that will harm their company? Why would they do this? Why would they raise money for this person? Why would they donate money?

 Again, take this mythical CEO. And for this example, this CEO does not have a knowingly traceable crony relationship with Obama.

 He's simply a political fundraiser. He simply has an emotional attachment -- as opposed to, say, somebody like the Solyndra guys, who, frankly, wouldn'ta cared whatever Obama was gonna do because he was giving them money. He was funding their business, so policy didn't matter. For this mythical CEO I'm talking about, that's not the case. In fact, this mythical CEO knows that Obama's policies are harmful. Yet something is stopping her from voting for people that will actually give her more customers with more disposable income which will grow her business.

 So what is it, if it isn't policy

 Sigmund Freud used to think that sex was the ultimate motivating power in people's lives. ... But it turns out that as Sigmund Freud got older (and as do most people who get older, he got wiser), he realized that it was not sex that was the ultimate motivating power in people's lives but rather it was the drive to be respected by their peers.

 And even further, a desire to be respected by the elites who decide who is respectable or not. ...

We're trying to win an election, and if policy is not how you go get people, then how do you do it? That's a huge question. Now, it could well be there's also this factor: This mythical CEO assumes that by being such a vocal public supporter of Obama, the CEO is gonna end up being in the elite circle of who decides who's hip and who's not and who's respected and who's not, or respectable or not.

The older I get, the more I learn that the people are totally ... governed by what people think of them. It's the desire to be respected by their peers. Well if you are in Silicon Valley, you are not gonna be respected if you're a Republican. It just ain't gonna happen. You're not gonna be respected if you're a conservative. It isn't gonna happen, and policy won't matter.
...

 So Romney's gonna continue to be -- no matter what he is -- stiff, rich, heartless, the whole cliche. But it boils down to the fact, I think, that Freud ended up being right. What people want is to be respected by their peers. And as they get older and as they move up their own ladders of success, that being respected by others then changes. It becomes being respected by the elites. The elites they want to be. The elites they want to be part of. The elites."