The Biggest Myth About Bipartisan Politics

We have all heard the misquoted phrase that a picture is worth a thousand words. In 1927, Fred R. Barnard wrote, “A picture is worth ten thousand words,” when he quoted it as a Chinese proverb. However true this may be, pictures can lie as much as words. We have been mesmerized by glitzy graphics to prove a point in marketing everything from prophylactic condoms to political candidates. Another quote, “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure,” erroneously attributed to Mark Twain because it sounds like him, could be another wise old Chinese saying. Have you ever researched “bipartisan” looking for some logical scientific illustration, graph, or Venn diagram that shows the interrelationship between political parties and issues? The results of such a search reveal a confusing display of overlapping circle charts that are so dangerously flawed they are comical. The Venn circles of Democrat and Republican intersect to prove whatever point the authors want to make based on their particular set of biases. The same chart can be shown pro-left or pro-right depending on which set of values are chosen to show up in the overlapping middle segment.

Intuitively, a thinking person can wrestle with issues and try to mold a consensus based on accumulated facts. Are there actually any facts to be found? In reality, people gravitate toward opinions that agree with their preconceived notions and accept them as fact. A recent survey by Pew Research Center showed that advocates for both major political parties in the US are more likely to think news statements are factual when they appeal to their side even if they are only someone’s opinions. Wading into the abyss that is social media confirms the theory that such polarization not only exists but is getting worse. People are losing friendships and ending long-standing relationships over unfounded, and sometimes even unconscious, political bias. It is too easy to prove someone else wrong by citing a meaningless left-leaning or right-leaning media report.

There is currently a duopoly of power that resides in the two major political parties. It is not a matter of self-preservation as much as it is a propaganda tool to oust any opposition to an opinion that may or may not be factual. Why? The answer is because power is profit. Money talks. This lust for control and dollars results in a confusing array of overlapping opinions that defy understanding. A Venn diagram for American political parties related to issues would look like an orgy of oversexed amoebae. In this environment of two-party oligarchy, the word bipartisan perpetuates the illusion that there are only two choices. To remain in control, it is in the best interests of the minority oligarchs to have us believe that cooperation between the two parties leaves no room for a third (or fourth?) party to challenge them. They actively join together to oppose any such opposition as it would reveal the underlying fable.

Another Pew study on the current political topology shows that the general public consists of 13% core conservatives and 18% solid liberals. Simple math would tell us that 69% of us don’t belong in either camp regardless of how much the media blasts the over-hyped value of bipartisanship. Bipartisan means compromise between the minority viewpoints at either end of the spectrum and implies voluntary cooperation between the two poles. Most of the time, hard-core partisans have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this so-called bipartisanship relationship. Perhaps non-partisan would be a better goal. Compromise on issues is difficult. When we try to assign opposing views such as right-to-life and capital punishment to one party, it makes no sense. In fact, the political topology study also revealed that deep chasms are forming within the left and the right. The ongoing problem with the election of the lesser of two evils won’t go away in the current political climate.

The myth of US bipartisanship is that it is a good thing for us and the country - a favorable merging of ideas from two parties. Nothing could be further from the truth. It implies non-existent cooperation between two extremes which is virtually impossible. The most notable collaboration is seen in the collusion between the two major parties to exclude anyone else from having a voice. Debates that exclude voices outside of those with conventional labels of D or R are the antithesis of democracy.   

There is no honest graphical depiction of these different concepts. Yes, there have been attempts to do overlapping circles of political outcomes. However, the best one seems to be the one published in The Daily Telegraph in the UK in 2015. It may not be unbiased, but it’s a very well done interactive graphic of opinions with a twist of humor. Yes, it too looks like amoebic intercourse, but it’s fun to play with it. Fun? Play? When will we get serious enough about our future that we actively promote revolutionary ideas like independent thinking and respect for individual rights? Time will tell. The inertia of the minority political duopoly will continue to dominate until everyday people wake up and use our heads for something other than a product endorsement, logo embossed baseball cap. Don’t we deserve more?

The rainbow of diverse political ideas and ideals will only coalesce into a thing of beauty when we learn to excise the ugliness and stop pretending that blue or red are the only choices.

Manage Change Or It Will Manage You

If you got the impression I was somewhat upset at Facebook’s decision to stop allowing third-party apps to post to a personal profile, you were right. I still think it’s a stupid move, but it did shake me from the lethargy that comes with conforming to habit rather than thinking. We don’t realize that we are in that rut until something changes. Getting out of our comfort zone to explore new things is necessary for individual growth, but it’s not always intuitively obvious. Change alone for the sake of changing won’t make anything positive happen. With the right perspective, every setback can be an opportunity to refocus on objectives and plot a new course of action.

The first and most crucial decision was to overcome the initial reflex just to quit! Maybe there is an element of ego involved in putting a piece of myself out there for all to see, but I honestly don’t believe I have a tremendous following or that it casts me in some godlike status with my peers. The truth is that I enjoy interacting with people. When I greet my friends on social media with a silly animal tongue and the words, “Good morning phfffffft!” it has grown into a sign of the need to start each day with a smile. People send me messages and emails with photos of funny road signs to add to my collection of quips about confusing or conflicting traffic situations. I am always amazed at the collective creativity of everyone commenting on my “Caption this Picture” posts every evening. It is fun to do and with auto staging through Buffer on Sunday before the week starts it doesn’t involve heavy lifting.

The necessity to find an appropriate platform to continue my posts took a bit of thinking. Facebook is attempting to force my posting format and others like it into groups or pages instead of using the personal profiles to do so. After looking into my alternatives, with auto-posting as the primary goal, I started experimenting with creating a blog-like page of my particular brand of humor. The attraction to my geekiness resulted in the decision to create a page and all the benefits to me as well as to Facebook. I can continue to do what I do, and they can continue to encourage me to spend money with them. I need to flesh this out further before I pay for the new page, but there are reasons it could be worthwhile.

It is evident that there are advantages to using a new blog page.

·         I can continue to post the same items through Buffer or other platforms without violating any of Facebook’s arbitrary rules.

·         It will be possible to expand the use of my thoughts and ideas using a page that I would never have been able to do in a personal profile.

·         Those who have contributed to my Facebook posts can not only continue to do so but may also add contributions in the same format to further engage with this like-minded community.

·         In addition to my “day job” as depicted on my company page, this fills a void for advertising my personal brand as a writer, blogger, and speaker.

Is there any better way to describe the ultimate variety of humor mixed with everything else than to use the analogy of an information buffet where it all comes together. I hope that this will expand beyond something that is my sole input to a covered-dish kind of presentation where everybody contributes to the table. As moderator and head chef of the affair, I will open a new avenue for people to approach me and for me to interact with a broader audience.

Search Facebook for @TheDailySmorgasbord to join in. If it doesn’t work, and I can still pull the plug!

The Only Thing We Can Always Expect Is Change

Somehow I missed it, but Facebook is making some significant changes, and they affect me. I received a notice from Buffer telling me that they would no longer be able to post things to my personal FB profile because of this policy shift. “Important News: On July 26, you will no longer be able to manage personal Facebook profiles in Buffer.” The convoluted reasoning behind this move reminds me of the time my 5th-grade teacher Ms. Roof penalized the whole class because Wayne threw a chalkboard eraser at her. Because a few bad guys, by some people’s definition, did serial political posting during the US elections, we all get slapped on the wrist as if we are in some dire conspiracy to eliminate democracy. Unfortunately, many misguided politicians, and others who think big government should regulate big business, wholeheartedly endorse this “guilty until proven innocent” mentality. Despite the outward appearance of being a responsible and compliant company, that’s not the primary reason Facebook is making this change. It’s about money.

There are many reasons why Facebook is right. They are a business first. They have every right to make changes to policy as long as it doesn’t conflict with their basic agreement with us. We choose to use their platform based on the terms of service published by them. We have no right as customers to demand, expect, or even ask for anything we haven’t bought from them with real money. This argument also holds true for LinkedIn, Google, Amazon, and any of the myriad of other internet platforms we have taken for granted to be ours. We blindly accept this public visibility and even share parts of our selves that should be private information.

There are also many reasons why Facebook is wrong. There is a dimension of branding not included in their shortsighted decision. Building another online job board is not the wave of the future. Creating an interactive platform for individuals as well as companies to brand themselves would have been an enormous leap in the right direction. Offering the ability to build a personal brand with staged responses to questions, displays of coordinated interactions with others, and insight into the “white space” in the resume would paint a better picture of the total person and make collaboration between individuals a reality. LinkedIn should have been that platform, and now Facebook is missing out.

How does this impact me and my “branding” with my personal profile? I already manage one business page and am co-owner of others. I believe that my brand should be of my choosing, and that means consciously choosing what information to share, when to share it, and to whom. Can this be accomplished on a personal profile? Of course, it can, but without the necessary tools to allow this to be a well thought out campaign, there is a lot of heavy lifting involved. That’s why most personal posts on Facebook have degraded themselves to a spur-of-the-moment response or emotional outcry. It may also be just my opinion, but it seems to degrade the entire product when chaos ensues. That seems to confirm the theory that they don’t care about individuals, who expect it for free and choose instead to focus on businesses that are willing to pay for that privilege.

Many of my family, friends, and followers think I spend 24/7 on social media. The truth is that I’m a geek and lazy. If I am doing this right, my brand shows me to be an intelligent, witty, and generous person. There are subtle shades of politics, science, and technology that I also want to blend into my profile because they are a part of me. Planning and staging these ideas are not cheating the system. If you have ever seen my morning greetings with an animal tongue and the caption, “Good morning phfffffft!” it should be evident that it has been staged in Buffer to launch every morning at the same time. I’ve also had a lot of fun exploring the creativity and humorous mindset of my friends by posting obscure pictures and featuring it as, “Caption this picture.” If there is such a thing as planned spontaneity, mine happens on Sunday evening when I think about what images, quotes, and humor I want to share during the coming week. It also affords the flexibility to insert my comments in real time on my profile to keep it alive. A wise person once said this, “Work smarter, not harder,” but I pretend I said it first.

I will have to change how I do things now. I will adopt a new methodology, pay them for a new page, or just give up. I’m not under any delusion that I have crowds of people following my every move, but for me, it has been a way to cultivate my professional network and keep in touch with all who I have met in real life and online. After all, Facebook does call them “friends.”

Stay tuned… more to come.

My Ten Year Love Affair with Apple

Dear Apple Customer Support: I want to report a rude and obnoxious customer who was overheard using harsh words… yes, even profanity… to workers in your store at Danbury Fair Mall last night. No, never mind… that was me! Sorry about that.

Flashback to a year ago when the battery on my iPhone 6 wouldn’t hold a charge: With the help of expert technical support, the problem was identified as a 500 charge battery that was chugging along with nearly a 1,000 charge total. That’s pretty good considering that nothing is forever and anything mechanical or electrical will eventually wear out. Sixty minutes and $79 later the phone was like new.

Déjà vu.

A few weeks ago my wife’s iPhone 6 encountered the same problem. Expecting the usual Apple quality service, we made an appointment to have the battery replaced with plans to drop off the phone after work, have dinner, and come back to pick it up. I should know by now that expectations and reality sometimes follow different paths. Now starts a different chapter in the Apple support experience.

The floor manager we encountered when we checked in, after we scoured the store for a few minutes to find her, scolded us for showing up early. “Nobody comes early for an appointment!” Well, I do. As she was dismissing me as a stereotypical technically incompetent Boomer, I didn’t mention that I thought she was acting out a stereotypical Millennial behavior that gives them all a bad name. “Just walk around the mall for 15 minutes and come back. Oh, by the way, we may not even have your battery in stock since there is a $29 special and everybody is doing it.” Thanks for making that my problem and lowering expectations before even starting!

Instead of a leisurely walk to the restaurant, we kept a close eye on the time and just browsed in one store before returning at the appointed time. Again, we searched for someone, ANYONE, who would talk to us. After walking around for about five minutes, I finally ambushed an Apple rep in a Star Trekish Redshirt, and we were instructed to sit at a table and wait for the next technician. Fifteen minutes later, a man walked up and began talking to us. He was friendly, technically competent, and the fear that this was a doomed venture started to ebb away slowly. The diagnosis was exactly as we expected, and I signed my name on an iPad with my finger for a $29 new battery. Then the other shoe dropped. “Did they tell you that there is a two-hour wait?” Well, no, but it is what it is. At least we don’t have to rush our weekday date night dinner.

Fast forward two hours: There weren’t as many people in the store when we returned, precisely on time because we didn’t want to incur the Wrath of Khan and risk having our brains erased. It was still like pulling teeth to find someone who wanted to help us. I walked over to the door that seemed to lead to the inner sanctum of Appleness and lassoed the first Redshirt headed to that door. “Let me see if it’s ready.” It wasn’t. “Yours is the next one to be serviced, and if they don’t get to it, I’ll do it myself. Just have a seat, and I’ll get back to you.” How long would it be? According to this Redshirt, about fifteen minutes. He was then beamed to a distant planet in another galaxy and never seen again.

Fast forward another hour: Nothing! Nada! Crickets! Now I see my favorite floor manager lurking by the door to the Apple black hole where phones go but never return. “Can you tell me where we are in the queue now? We’ve been waiting for quite a while.” Of course, my name wasn’t on her list now as it had been over three hours ago. Obviously annoyed, she finally figured out that we were waiting for a repair, found my name on another list, and said, “Oh yes. It’s ready.” Then in a condescending voice, she scolded me again, “You know they don’t just come out. You have to ask somebody.” The first utterance of profanity was under my breath as I walked away. I was pissed. When I told my wife what just happened, she was angrier than I was.

I’m not sure how long we waited this time for a tech to bring out the phone because my anger was escalating as we sat there dumbfounded at how we were being treated. “We’re going to have to give you a new phone because there was water damage to yours. We’re not allowed to put a new battery in a phone with water damage.” We just stared at each other. The closest this phone has been to water is when my wife downloaded a recipe for vegetable soup. “We can give you the new phone for the same $29 as replacing the battery on the old phone.” Was this a glimmer of hope at last? Nope! It didn’t take long for him to change his mind. “No, wait… since it’s out of warranty, the charge will be $299 plus tax.” Dumbfounded, I let him put my credit card in his machine and run a tape for $312.99! Note to Apple conspiracy theorists: Are you thinking this is how they are making up the cost of offering replacement batteries for $29?

I can’t recall my exact words at this point, but I do know I expressed extreme displeasure and used an analogy synonymous with bovine feces to describe the situation. “Do you want to talk to a manager?” I hesitated. My wife who is now steaming said, “Yes!” and I added, “…as long as it isn’t HER!” pointing to my new Apple archnemesis. As I watched him remove the SIM card from the old phone and put it in the “new” phone, something stirred in the recesses of my brain. I recently upgraded to an iPhone X and there is an identical iPhone 6 in my desk drawer at home with a recently replaced battery. The man who walked up and introduced himself as a manager was polite and obviously well versed in handling customers who have endured three tortuous hours and totally lost it. After apologizing to us and trying to explain what was happening, we mutually agreed that we were better off reversing the charge to the credit card and just going home with the old phone. Done!

After the cold ride home with the events of the evening still churning inside of us, I told my wife I knew exactly what to do next. I plugged in my old iPhone to get the battery up to speed, swapped the SIM from my wife’s phone, upgraded to the latest iOS, and restored it from the cloud. Ta daa! She can now look up her movie references on IMDB while watching Netflix again. Total cost to us: Dinner at Brio Tuscan Grill - $59.24, and Apple Store - $0.00.

In Apple’s defense, the bogus claim that there had been some sort of insidious plot to screw over their iPhone customers drove them to offer the $29 battery replacement as a public relations peace offering. It was very clear that this corporate decision was an edict passed down to all these innocent Redshirts who are now on a strange planet being attacked on all sides without the tools or pipeline to support that decision. The store was more crowded than I’ve ever seen it. Most of the reps seem to handle the added stress in stride, but others were frazzled and snippy. After more than ten years of a love affair with Apple since my first iPhone 3G, I felt betrayed. I wasn’t expecting snippiness or condescension. This jilted Apple lover, who has defended and applauded his life technology partner on multiple occasions, may now be rethinking whether or not such loyalty is still deserved.

What Terrorizes You?

It’s easy to quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first inaugural address in 1933 about “…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” but those words out of context do not apply today. We don’t know what fear is. The terrorism he mentions in that speech isn’t the same terrorism we see in today’s world. The truth is we don’t even have a consensus on the definition of terrorism. We speak of self-proclaimed terrorists killing innocent people and that, while understandably frightening, is not the objective of terrorism. The goal of a terrorist is – [dramatic pause, wait for it] – to inflict terror! Period. Terrorism includes any means possible to frighten people into submission, yes, including killing, but also by misdirection, misinformation, and misgivings.

I am terrified by

• The current bipolar culture – One of the constant moral dilemmas we face is the concept that everything must be black or white, right or wrong, left or right, Republican or Democrat. It is easy to base simple minded arguments on a self-serving collection of data or information that supports a preconceived point of view. It is easy to reject or even be blind to any alternative viewpoint. Our political menu does not allow a choice of one item from column A, and one from column B. Politics has degraded into a dogmatic declaration of absolute positions on which there can be no discussion or dissent. Ironically, this causes logical conflicts within a reasonable human mind that is hard to resolve. For example, there is certainly a logical argument that an individual can be pro-choice and anti-abortion. We have blindly accepted the re-definition of these terms without considering that there may be shades of gray. Can an individual be pro-life and pro-capital punishment? While these terms may sound mutually exclusive, the poles of the body politic demand conformity to a prescribed position regardless of logic. Rationalizing the coexistence of conflicting ideas is shallow, and defeats the right of an individual to think.
• The rise of extremism – When people lose sight of the middle ground on issues, the result is a single-minded shift to offset the perceived movement by the opposition in the other direction. The mantra of the moment seems to be that extreme views are justified to make a strong statement even if it is wrong. A common defense against extremism is to attack the messenger instead of the message. Arguments miss the intended targets when they are ad hominem attacks on the speaker, and the knee-jerk counterpunch pushes an already extreme position even further in the other direction. Worse yet, there is a bandwagon effect that magnifies the problem by piling on more illogical rhetoric instead of reaching out for compromise or looking for a common ground for legitimate dialog. There probably should always be an opinion pendulum swing that moves through a continuous arc of data and logic. If a pendulum stops, the clock stops. When we don’t allow a logical dialog to happen, opposing viewpoints are never satisfied.
• The loss of the individual rights – This is not a new thing even though it is becoming more obvious in a world where communication of so-called news can be instant, opinions become stated as facts, and reasoning is out of vogue. This country’s foundation is on the principle that all humanity is created equal. There are those today who would argue that is no longer a self-evident truth. A tenet of the very foundation of a democratically elected government and a basis for law is that every human being must be assumed to be of equal worth. Authoritarian policies emphasizing only a single point of view may be deemed legally acceptable for a while, but they will not survive the ethical measure of the passage of time, or the reason for our existence is a lie. We have become so ensnared by fear of an amorphous enemy that the state justifies its terror on individual liberties with the pretense of saving us from terror.
• The technology of too-easy communication – Technology should be a tool to facilitate a dialog, but it seems to have become a weapon instead. It has become too easy to dash off a quick unthinking idea without regard to the facts or logic. It is also just as easy to retaliate in kind. This unfortunate irony of this scenario is that it ignores the fact that modern technology also makes it easier to do bona fide research into matters that are critical to our thinking. When we take preconceived ideas into a light-speed conversation, we welcome allies who agree with us and reject those who don’t. There are also those who would intentionally seek to spread misinformation to prove an agenda. It takes more than a little bit of basic intelligence to fine-tune our crap filters to stay the course. We need to learn which sources are trustworthy based on how objective they are rather than how closely they match our preconceived notions. Speed of communication can help us form better conclusions or help us make bad decisions faster.
• The whimsical redefinition of words – Apparently, we are now supposed to pigeon hole people into stereotypical buckets so that we can more easily discriminate against their beliefs. For example, the word populist means representing the interests of ordinary people as opposed to rule by the elite. If a de facto dictator thrusts populist ideas on people, it serves the dictator rather than the people and their freedom. The recent election did not give the new president a mandate to impose his will on the country despite a claim to be fulfilling promises made to the people. It seems more likely to be self-serving pandering to the interests of people perceived to be in his support base. Interestingly, the election was so close and so hotly contested that the same would probably be true if his opponent had won. Crony capitalism is seen to be wrong only when their cronies are doing it instead of ours. Ours is not a country of aristocracy but a country of “We the people…” and we can never relinquish that right. To follow blindly is to confirm a theory attributed to Karl Marx: The masses are asses, or P.T. Barnum: There’s a sucker born every minute.
• The loss of religious freedom as a mainstream value – I am unashamedly Christian. There are those who would judge me by that and bucketize me into a stereotype with those who are haters of non-Christians. These people apparently don’t understand the basic teachings of Christ. Anyone who would restrict freedom from anyone and promote hate because of religious beliefs, or lack of it, is going against Christian beliefs. Where is an objective look at faith as a personal right? The Quran has references to Jesus, both Jews and Muslims are descendants of Father Abraham, and there are many similarities between Islamic and Judaic scripture. We also don’t have to look far to find historical references in scripture to a conflict that has existed for millennia. There is no quick political fix, especially when meddling outsiders are proposing the fix. Most Americans fail to recognize that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same deity in different ways. Whether it is God, Yahweh, or Allah, or nothing, belief is a personal thing that is a sacred right of humanity. Many will attempt to follow their beliefs to instruct, inform, and possibly convert others, but we have no right, at least in this country, of forcing a religious viewpoint on anyone. The separation of church and state is a keystone of our liberty.
• The overshadowing of reason, friendship, love – My biggest fear is losing people who are close to me. It will not happen because I locked them out of my heart and soul, but because they don’t choose to be with me. Some of this is transient anger because I have chosen not to think like them. If I am honest with myself and others I need to stick to my guns when I am right, admit I’m wrong when I am proven wrong, and continue to relish a dialog even with people who disagree with me without animosity. It bothers me that even our youngest citizens are already learning a new word: unfriend. My intellectual growth will suffer if I am cut off from logically conceived opposing viewpoints. My heart will break if there is a rift between those I love because of my beliefs.

So, in FDR’s words, what do I have to fear? Frankly, I am more afraid of the terror within this country than I am from some foreign bogeyman. That fear is more about where we are going than where we are now. Maybe I am even afraid of myself. It is so easy to be lured by emotion rather than logic and fall prey to the unthinking. Is it OK to wave my protest sign saying “All people deserve freedom of speech!” while I’m shouting “Fuck you!” at those around me? Yes, it IS allowable, but I hope we all choose a different path. The high road is hard. If we can’t do that – if we can’t handle the truth – the terrorists have won, and we are all permanently terrorized.

Image credit: Humour sur la statue de la Liberté