Researchers asked ‘staunch’ political party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their view, or the view of their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored. Researchers did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain that normally engages during reasoning. They saw instead a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts. Test subjects, irrespective of political party affiliation, reached biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted. None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were observed to be significantly engaged. many of you will observe that this is not unlike religion, but that is the point. Socialism is a religion. Socialists would argue that Capitalism is no less a religion to many proponents.

And here is the rather amazing part. It appears as if political partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope, rejecting unfavorable images until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones. In other words, people get positive vibes from ignoring negative information (that is damaging to their own strong biases). Once again, notably absent were any increases in activation of the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.

It is an unusual person who acts differently. They are called conservatives whose philosophy revolves in a universe of facts.

The study tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry in this case – statements that clearly contradicted each other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the discrepancy. Then they were presented with still another statement that might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated several times for each candidate.

The brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate and instead focused solely on detected contradictions in the opposing candidate. The result is the inescapable conclusion that partisan beliefs are calcified, insoluble with facts, and such a person will at a minimum have difficulty and may refuse to learn from information derived from new data.

Have you ever heard of Yellow Dog Democrats? If you grew up in the south, and particularly in Texas, people would only vote for a Democrat, even if the Democratic Party only put a yellow dog on the ballot. Things can and do change over time. Republicans are now being elected even in yellow dog counties, and blue candidates are being elected in the red states. But it was a long time for that change to come. Now, we see some of the opposite patterns. But it is that way all over the world. And that is the way it is in Palestine and particularly when you have to deal with the belief systems inherent in the Middle East. Now you see where this is heading.

That is why you can reliably predict what a "core" vote will be. It is what makes political gerrymandering so effective and easy.

There is a small group of voters in the middle, who the media calls “undecided’s,” whose minds do not get a positive stimulus from ignoring factual data. The competition for their hearts and minds is intense. American political problems are a product of the human condition just as they are in the Middle East. We come to the table with our biases, as does every voter, even in the Middle Eastern attempts at democracy.

It is only when there is a serious crisis of some kind that we seem to look for answers outside our calcified biases.

It is so important that Americans understand how our own thought processes routinely deceive us into acting in ways that are not consistent with good foreign policy or national defense. Too often, the media and the State Department simply believe what they want to believe. Every conservative understands this phenomenon. The holy grail of conservative life is facts. Most conservatives would tell you that liberals seem impervious to facts and are too often consumed with calcified biases. Liberals, when confronted with facts that would not be helpful, or contradict their deeply felt point of view (their calcified bias), they ignore the facts and try to explain away the contradictions. Often you can listen to a national figure attempt to find some novel new interpretation of the data. Failing that, there must be a Congressional hearing to look for more facts which favor our calcified position. Why should we expect anything less from the Palestinian Muslims?

How do you think people in business and government interpret the data? They choose that which leads to the best conclusions for themselves and their prospects? We all want to believe that things are going to get better. Facing hard facts is so against our psychological systems that it is the truly rare leader who can do it.

Rather than letting the data and information "talk to us," media outlets are notorious for trying to tell the data what to say, or tell us what they wished the data had said. The media will let an improperly constructed and poorly interpreted poll (a survey device to determine if the propaganda is working) convince them that a particular outcome is preferred by the American people. The media will bet everything on it.

Regardless of what we do in the financial markets, in the political markets we typically invest for the long term. Once our political allegiance is invested, we seldom change it. Changing political party typically only happens after an extended period of time and crisis after crisis of conflicting facts. Once committed, most human beings take the path of least resistance. Why should we expect the Palestinians to behave differently, particularly in the face of being labeled a "non-conformist malcontent" in an Islamic society?

One example may be too close to home. The path of least resistance more often than not leads to a dead-end alley where you get mugged and your retirement is taken from you. The prospect of lower benefits, increased taxes, reduced standard of living and working much longer than you wanted to is staring all United States citizens in the face. Who in their right mind wants to reform Social Security and Medicare knowing how reform will negatively affect all United States citizens? The path of least political resistance in Congress is to do nothing. Why should we expect Democrats and liberal Republicans in Congress to behave any differently? Only when the path of least resistance favors massive reform of Social Security will change occur. Congressmen derive the greatest personal benefit by doing nothing.

The path of least resistance for America in the Middle East is identical - to do nothing, which will undoubtably exacerbate the final outcome. Such is the case of Iran and the administration attempting to "manage" the war.

Typically we look for answers after any family, county, state or national crisis, after we have taken the beating. An Islamic beating is not one you want to endure. Having said that, win or lose; those are our only choices. Act, or continue to take an Islamic beating. As we ponder the choices, it is important to realize that the least competent among us, those who stalk the halls of Congress, are making these decisions in our behalf. Doing anything involves risk and Congress functions only in self-interest.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

The retreating Mexican soldiers and the civilian smugglers abandoned a Cadillac Escalade (that was stolen in the U.S.) loaded with over 1400 pounds of marijuana. The Sheriff’s department confirmed reports that another drug-laden SUV which got stuck in the river was set ablaze by Mexican soldiers.

Sec. Chertoff, responding last week to reports of more than 200 such incursions by the Mexican Army over the past ten years, downplayed the incursions, calling the reports “overblown.”

Hudspeth County Deputy Sheriff Mike Doyal was quoted in a report by the Inland Daily Bulletin report saying, “Our government has to do something," he said. "It's not the immigrants coming over for jobs we're worried about. It's the smugglers, Mexican military and the national threat to our borders that we're worried about."

MCDC President Simcox issued the following statement on the armed incursion by the Mexican Army:

“The politically correct policies of President Bush, Sec. Chertoff and Gov. Perry regarding our border are going to get Americans killed – by Mexican soldiers, drug smugglers or al-Qaeda terrorists. These office holders seem to be more afraid of offending the government of Mexico than protecting the lives of American citizens.

“American troops, whether regular Army, National Guard or state militia under the authority of Gov. Perry, need to be deployed immediately to secure our borders.

“Sec. Chertoff recently said reports of such incursions by the Mexican Army were ‘overblown.’ He should resign his post, as he clearly has no intention of taking these incursions seriously. If heavily armed members of the Mexican Army are crossing the border with impunity guarding drug shipments, what’s to stop al-Qaeda from doing the same with weapons of mass destruction?

“The Minutemen, who have themselves observed Mexican soldiers violating American sovereignty, demand immediate action to protect American citizens.”

For more information about MCDC, go to Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
www.minutemanhq.com

« Close It

For a short period of time, during “the innocent days,” there were no liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, Christians, Jews or Agnostics. Who was president was not important and who was an American meant everything.

Consider two alternative scenarios for the first fourteen days:

1. What if the FBI or the President announced that they were going to immediately begin screening all aviation travelers (get over it or don’t travel), screen libraries for people checking out books on bomb-making (for the safety of families and children in schools), develop an intelligence dossier on every Muslim in America, and follow every possible terrorist lead regardless of any possible offense to any artificial subset of society? What if the President announced that pilots would hereafter be armed and cockpit doors fortified (get over it or don’t fly)? What if the President announced that soft targets throughout the country that were vulnerable to terrorism, such as water systems, harbors, airports and nuclear plants, and borders would be dramatically hardened with additional security? What if the President announced that all Islamic males who were in America must register within 30 days? What if the FBI rounded up all non-citizen Islamic males and deported them without recourse due to national emergency?

2. What if the President or the FBI announced that there was no serious threat of terrorism and no policies would change?

Which alternative would have been rational or irrational? Which choice would have angered you in the weeks following September 11, 2001?

Now consider Hurricane Katrina, Rita and Wilma alternatives:

1. What if FEMA or the President announced that they were going to staff, operate, supply, coordinate, fund, rescue, rebuild and transport everyone and everything associated with the relief effort, beginning at the instant devastation was certain, as rapidly as they could respond, even if it meant bypassing federal law, state and local governments, and relief organizations?

2. What if FEMA or the President announced authoritatively that disaster recovery and the welfare of their citizens was the primary responsibility of individual states, and secondarily the federal government. What if the President announnced that he would respect state governments first and would respond immediately upon written request of State Governors, in cooperation with civilian relief agencies, after a comprehensive damage assessment had been completed and relief needs were known?

Which choice would have angered you in the weeks following the hurricanes?

Why is national defense (our lives, our families, our children, our jobs, our value systems) somehow less important to Democrats, liberal Republicans and the Main Stream Media than hurricane related property damage on the Gulf Coast? Why is defense of our nation from another terrorist event, protection of our economy, and safeguarding our sovereignty somehow evil in the eyes of liberals? Why are the people of Afghanistan and Iraq unworthy of freedom? Why is anything pro-American viewed by Democrats and liberal Republicans as conceived in lies? Why are Congressmen and the media so willing to divulge classified information and give aid and comfort to enemies of America? Why are deaths of American servicemen and women greeted with media celebration of milestones? Why are the American military bases foolishly being closed as a form of Congressional sport? Why are advanced weapon systems and needed troop equipment unworthy of Congressional funding, but no amount of money and speed of response would have been sufficient in the aftermath of a hurricane?

Why such contradictions? Are our lives, and those of our servicemen and women worth so little, that Democrats and liberal Republicans see no need for a strong national defense, comprehensive border control and competent foreign intelligence?

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Consider just a few of the ways your 2005 tax money was used:

• $638 million for the unelected Musharraf government in Pakistan;
• $735 million to control dangerous drugs originating in South America;
• $150 million for development in Gaza, in addition to the millions the Palestinians receive every year;
• $110 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative, ostensibly for economic development, although the recipient nations include oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Why in the world are American taxpayers giving welfare to OPEC governments?
• Over $500 million for various republics in the former Soviet Union. Even as those nations spawn millionaires and even billionaires, Americans are expected to provide welfare for their poor.
• $95 million in new money for the United Nations Democracy Fund;
• $34 million for the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund, which supports and funds nations like China in infanticide as a national policy;
• $440 million for international population planning;
• $80 million for the Global Environment Facility, run by the World Bank to fund anti-capitalist environmental projects around the world.

Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. For repeated emphasis, none of this spending is authorized in the U.S. Constitution - but that doesn’t stop Congress. There is an even stronger moral case to be made against taking tax money from Americans, who are struggling to raise and educate a family, and giving it to foreign governments. Of course the money comes with stipulations but those technicalities are typically ignored. Foreign aid doesn’t help poor people in foreign countries; it helps foreign elites and US corporations who obtain the contracts doled out by those foreign elites. Everyone in Washington knows this, but the same lofty rhetoric is used over and over to sell foreign aid programs. Corporate welfare is bad enough, but nation welfare in the guise of helping poor foreigners abandoned by their own governments is (fill in the blank).

In many cases, foreign aid money simply distorts foreign economies and props up bad and oppressive governments. In countries that pursue harmful economic policies, an infusion of US cash only exacerbates and prolongs problems. No amount of money can help nations that reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law. Now that we mention it, property rights – what are those again?

Since American foreign aid programs began in earnest decades ago, hundreds of billions of US tax dollars have been gifted to changing governments of nations around the globe. The utter failure of this money to change things for the better in those nations (or anywhere else) is no longer in question; most of the money never finds its way to alleviate any form of human suffering or business development. Even the most earnest advocates of foreign aid know that little is achieved other than buying loyalty to, and dependence on, America in such places as the United Nations and continuation of foreign military bases from which strategic interests can be safeguarded. Most recipient nations remain endlessly mired in poverty, political and legal corruption, and cultural malaise.

A rational person would argue that failed aid programs should be eliminated. In fact, it would be hard to identify a successful foreign aid program. In Washington, however, the solution to failed programs is that they get more money thrown at them. The rationale is that the only problem was that we didn’t give enough program money the first time or the second time. The American public deserves to know why there is room in the budget for $21 billion in foreign aid when American taxpayers face record budget deficits and so many national priorities go both unfunded and unresolved. Why, even anti-American groups supporting illegal immigration (La Raza) receive millions of tax dollars in federal subsidies.

If this is politics, then politics are badly broken, and Congressmen trying to fix it can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Has it finally become responsible to ask, "What you would call a politician with an IQ of 100?" Congress?

Red State Patriot

« Close It