Knock, Knock…I’m Home


Happy Independence Day (for those of you who live in the United States…and perhaps today for those who live in Egypt as well!)

I’m back and ready to resume my blogging after an unanticipated and unplanned absence.  I turned 60 this year, and with it came an unwelcome set of health issues.  I know, there are a lot of “uns” in those two sentences.  Life is just like that at times.

Extreme Thinkover and my readers have never been far from my heart and thoughts throughout the past months. There have been countless issues in the news and ideas about all manner of things that I have wanted to write about.  Now, I think I have the wherewithall to start up again.  I can assure you I haven’t run out of opinions and perceptions of what is going on around us. Some of them might even be right.

As always, if there is a topic you would like to dialogue about, either submit a comment to this post, or write me at  The Contact Me link is in the header.

Let the words and ideas fly!


THIS President and YOU People Lost the Election. BIG Time.


Prelude:  I almost titled this post “The Fall of the Plutocrats’ Prejudiced Pronouns.”  What held me back, though, was the fear that if someone pronounced my clever alliteration out loud, they might get saliva on their computer/tablet/smartphone screen.  Since this is the beginning of the cold and influenza season, I decided to restrain myself in the service of good public hygiene.  Oh, do remember to cough or sneeze into the crook of your arm or your shoulder.  The viral laden droplets are far less apt to be transmitted to another when you offer that hearty handshake of yours.  And for crying out loud, stop being a wuss and go get a flu shot, too.  And wash your hands!

THIS and YOU: Pronouns of the Rich and…and…and…?

The leaders of the Right (the political and ideological right, that is), both formally and virtually, have consistently referred to Barack Obama as “THIS” president. Ann Romney, the now former presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s wife, upped the rhetorical ante during the campaign by referring to the country’s population as “YOU” people, by which she apparently meant the 99% of we mere plebes who lacked any cache’ conveyed by filthy-richness have no right to believe anything beyond what we are told by those who, after all, really matter: The ONE percent at the top of the socioeconomic marble staircase. From their lofty perspective, the expectation of unquestioning subservience applies just as much to those underlings of their own party, in this case the GOP, not just the 47% of the unwashed masses who weren’t going to vote for Romney anyway because they were too busy not paying any taxes or doing anything substantive or “responsible” to care for themselves.

As one who studied the power of rhetoric during his doctoral work, I found the Conservatives’ use of the pronouns “this” and” you” revealing in the sense of standing next to a rock wall and suddenly having an invisible door open.  Casting aside all caution for fear of being swept back into the Republicanism I have been in recovery from for close to a decade, I stepped over the threshold.  What a mess!  Just don’t tell anybody.

The Republicans have been referring to THE president as THIS president virtually from the day he was first sworn into office in 2009.  I contend the use of this particular pronoun was intended to be an objectivist put-down in most cases, to be both denigrating and condescending. For some, though, it is a subtle but rhetorically obvious statement based on the racial prejudice of the speaker.  I think it can be suggested that it is the modern euphemism of the discredited term, “boy.”  In some people the choice of the pronoun is not due to conscious thought so much as an expression of a kind of group-speak, although it carries the same rhetorical effect–a sarcastic slur.  The emotional effect and intent is to place a linguistic wedge between the man, in this case, Barack Obama, and the office that he holds, which happens to be President of the United States; it is intended to communicate that in the opinion of speaker, the person in possession of, again, in this case, the Oval Office is not legitimately entitled to be there. That is because he is __________ (fill in the blank).

The use of the pronoun “THIS” as a pejorative has been rampant amongst the GOP leadership for both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  In fact, I would go far as to state that if I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard Rep. John Boehner, Rep Eric Cantor, and their Senate counterparts, Sen. Mitch McConnell and Sen. John Kyl use the phrase, “THIS president,” I’d probably be richer than Karl Rove (who loves to use the pronoun, as well), who now has nothing more useful to do than to count the fees he made off the hundreds of millions of dollars he conned from the billionaire marks to defeat not just Pres. Obama, but also numerous Democratic senators and representatives, which, as we know now, was a complete waste of money.  I’m just certain Karl doesn’t have to give back his undoubtedly very big commissions despite all those losses he suffered at the hands of the American Voter.  But I digress.  Well, I do have to ask, “Hey Karl, how’s that Citizens United thingy working out for you these days?”

As I wrote earlier in the blog regarding Ann Romney’s rhetorical use of “YOU people” the same point is evident.  With recent reports coming out of The Netherlands of how Bain and Romney are alleged to have laundered millions in profits through the Dutch financial maze and in all likelihood avoided paying tens of millions of dollars in U.S. Taxes, it appears to be crystal clear why Mrs. Romney didn’t want to have those facts come to light. Especially to YOU people!  Not only is Romney very possibly indictable for felony tax evasion against the United States, it also would mean that the ten percent Mr. Romney has claimed he has given to the LDS as required by its church rules during those years was millions of dollars short.  Salt Lake would not be amused.

With such a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads and campaign, Mrs Romney had to resort to the only weapon she had at hand, a stinging verbal rebuke of the underlings for even daring to raise the question.  We the people—or in her rhetoric, “YOU people” are not worthy to be privy to the true financial records of the Great and Powerful Oz…er, uh, Rom. I am fairly certain that to this day she believes she put the entire nation in its place—once and for all.  They never did release their true tax returns for the ten years that has become the standard for presidential and vice presidential candidates.  Romney even required his running mate, the most unfortunate, Rep. Paul Ryan, to provide those documents to the Campaign as he was being vetted to be Romney’s running mate, but it seems suspiciously apparent to me that what was good for the goose was not good for the gander.

For me, the great irony of this election is that the Lords of plutocracy put forth a mighty cry, a bunch of bucks and a candidate that had all the personality of a Madam Tussaud’s wax museum figure, and they pretty much lost it all.  I find it hard, well, close to impossible, to be honest, to have any sympathy for their plight.

The election is over.  America is still in the hands of the people who count, not THOSE people* who thought they could buy it and own it, with the rest of us being subservient to their plutocratic will.

*Sorry, just couldn’t resist that one!

Boehner Blink?


Question #1 regarding the Federal Budget Debt Ceiling Limit Talks is are we hurtling toward a disaster on August 2?

Although the actuality for the U.S. Government and economy (depending on which pundits you choose to believe), may be more political than a real fiscal disaster, the political war of words has escalated to an incredible intensity.

Anyone paying the least attention to the rhetorical clashes between the political parties–and their internal factions–knows that the positions on both sides have been hardening, although perhaps ossifying (even fossilizing) might be more appropriate.

August 2, 2011 has become an temporal Great Wall of China (yes, I get the irony of the comparison).  Imagine two opposing armies charging headlong toward it from different directions, oblivious to fact the wall is not going to move.  Even though they hit the wall at the same time, the damage they inflict upon themselves will be enormous.  Evidently, only in the split second after the crushing blow of charging warriors into the wall begins, will the generals of both armies realize the magnitude of their mistake.  The Wall, though, won’t be hurt much at all.

In this game of chicken with an unmovable object, however, something unexpected has just happened.  Rep. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, perhaps, has blinked. The New York Times reports (9 July):

Citing differences over tax revenues, House Speaker John A. Boehner said on Saturday night that he would pull back from joint efforts with President Obama to reach a sweeping $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan tied to a proposal to increase the federal debt limit.


Now.  Who’s paying attention?  Will the Republicans, both the Mainline and the Tea Party factions trust Boehner’s judgment and unexpected move?  Is their iron-will to resist compromise, in the end, a strategy they can hold up as a prize, not only in congress but with their base?

Will the Democrats pull back from their headlong rush into the wall as well, and trust that the President’s growing pressure on Boehner to soften his position is having an affect that will meet their political goals regarding the deficit cap, as well as those for the Federal Budget and the economy in general?

We’re going to find out in just a few days.

We Have Seen His Star in the East–Part 2


Star of Wonder-- Myth or Astronomical Event?

A Stellar Event…Strangely, Not So Unexpected.

In Part 1, I suggested that the story of the Star of Bethlehem is one that starts in the wrong place and the wrong time. I see that as an asset, for perhaps that contradiction contributed to both its lasting power and to its veracity. In the previous post, we looked at the creation myths from the Aztecs of Mesoamerica and from the Sumerians of Mesopotamia. These narratives were created by peoples on opposite sides of the Earth who never had contact with each other. Despite that, their creation stories have unmistakable and remarkable similarities that suggest that there is an archetypal human story, following the models about which Joseph Campbell wrote extensively.

The Star of Bethlehem, which appears only in the Gospel of Matthew, is an anomaly. One of the unsolved mysteries of the Nativity narratives is that the star is not mentioned in the Gospel of Luke. Other than the opening passages of Genesis the writers of the Bible simply seem to have no interest in the sky, except metaphorically. Stars are lights in the night sky that are compared to something earthly or are evidence of God’s creative power. The Hebrews, however, did have an organized cosmology:

Hebrew Cosmology Illustrated. Photo source: unknown


The remarkable contrast of the above Hebrew model of the universe is clearly evident when compared to those of the Aztec’s and the Sumerian’s: In Genesis, there is a complete lack of violence in the act of creation. Few other religions have a similar cosmology in which an Earth Mother-goddess does not have to be destroyed and her various body parts used to make the earth, sky and humans. The ancient Hebrews had knowledge of these various stories from Mesopotamia and from Egypt, but in the Genesis account, those elements do not appear. For example, this Egyptian version (one of many Egyptian origin myths) demonstrates the more common world view of the Beginning:


Egyptian Creation Myth Illustrated--This Picture is based on the "Heliopolis Cosmogony," one of several dominant myths in the Egyptian Pantheon.

The Problem of “The Sky.”

I also suggested that humans began to differentiate the sky being distinct from the land and the oceans perhaps around circa 4300 years ago. Gavin White (2008), in his book Babylonian Star-Lore, maintains that “Babylonian astrologers started to export to their neighbors as early as the 13th century BCE” (p. 7). He goes on to contend that the development of natal horoscopes required a level of mathematics that was compiled in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, with the first modern equivalents finally appearing in the 5th century, or 2500 years ago. It is this assertion that raises the prospect of historically credible ties to planetary observations by Matthew’s Magi, and the possibility that the Star of Bethlehem’s discovery, or rather interpretation of a sky-based observation, was based on their millennial old texts and maps of the constellations.

These particular Magi were likely among the most highly educated individuals from any civilization, and familiar with astronomy from the known regions of the world. That would include Greece, where we must take a brief trip to meet the man who changed the sky and the universe four hundred years before the birth of Jesus.

To set the stage, I return to the question, “What is the sky?” White shares my view that these ancient cosmologies are neither crude nor primitive:

Today this “flat-earth” cosmology is generally belittled as being rather “primitive” and as far as it is given any attention it is relegated to the kindergarten of metaphysical speculation. This is unfortunate, as the model is actually a rather elegant presentation of archaic man’s view of himself and the universe in which he acted and had his being. It is a complex view of the world, one full of awe that utilizes the mysterious language of symbolism, where every element is a part of an interrelated network of forces. This model also underpins the rationale of celestial divination and magic, mankind’s first attempts to foretell and forestall the shape of things to come. (p. 21)

The tools of those attempts included defining the constellations, plotting the motion of the planets, phases of the moon, vital because they were tied to the seasons, but of course eclipses: lunar, more common than solar, the unexpected darkening of the day often believed to be a portent of evil or disasters.  To many in the ancient world only comets might inspire a greater fear.

From China to India, Persia to the Mediterranean, Egypt across the great Sahara of North Africa, Asia Minor, Greece, the expanse of the Roman Empire all the way to Britannia, the great celestial scroll of the night sky unrolled from horizon to horizon, open to be examined, its mysteries to be plumbed, and the fate of humans read in its aetherial language.

Sometime around the 7th century BCE, in Greece, the question of the sky rose once more, and a startlingly new answer was ventured. What if, these renegade philosophers dared to suggest, using their emerging expertise in mathematics and geometry, the sky was not the abode of the gods? What if the sky was a place, just like the earth, that the Sun, Moon and stars, even the ones which wander, were places? And if that were even possible, how far away were these places? What caused them to move around the earth? And if they moved, what if the Earth moved, too?  The intellectual battle raged for over 400 years, but no one could seem to find that one all-important key to prove whether it was right or wrong.


The Greek Geocentric Cosmos. Photo: Source Courtesy, A.H., 1996.

These were dangerous questions, on the level of heresy, but we’ll come back to that in a moment.

The Sky Problem Solved–But 1700 Years Too Soon!

Aristarchus of Samos

Those willing to think about daring questions at times come up with extraordinary answers.  One such radical was Aristarchus of Samos, a mathematician and astronomer who lived circa 310-230 BCE.  Samos, a volcanic island in the Aegean Sea, lies in the archipelago that separates modern Greece from Turkey.  An older contemporary of Archimedes, he was known among his generation as “the Mathematician.”

According to Sir Thomas Heath, who published Aristarchus’ full text of “On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon” into English (1913, 2004), “There is not the slightest doubt that Aristarchus was the first to put forward the heliocentric hypothesis. Ancient testimony is unanimous on the point and the first witness is Archimedes, who was a younger contemporary of Aristarchus, so that there is no possibility of a mistake. Copernicus, himself admitted that the theory was attributed to Aristarchus, though this does not seem to be generally known” (p. 301).

Archimedes, to his discredit, did not accept Aristarchus’ heliocentric theory and campaigned against it. Aristarchus’ idea was not theologically popular either in some circles. One Cleanthes attempted to indict the Mathematician “on the charge of impiety for putting into motion the Hearth of the Universe… ” (Heath, p. 304). What enraged Cleanthes was Aristarchus used geometry to prove his hypotheses: “by supposing the heaven to remain at rest and the earth to revolve around an oblique circle, while it rotates, at the same time, about its own axis” (Ibid.). No one knew how prescient this hypothesis really was, until seventeen hundred years later another mathematician named Copernicus reached the same conclusion after studying Aristarchus’ text , and a second, 150 years after him, one named Galileo.

The Magi: The Hubble, Sagan, and Hammel of Their Age

What is the connection to our Christmas Star? Aristarchus used star charts and calculations developed by the Babylonians centuries earlier. Sir Thomas presents a number of examples where Aristarchus used, what he called “Chaldean lunations,” basically books of tables that all mathematicians of the era would have as a standard in their libraries (p. 314).

The Magi, it is reasonable to infer, would have read Aristarchus. Mathematically he was an “Einstein” of his age, his texts were in circulation, and even though they likely would not have accepted his heliocentric hypothesis, just like modern astronomers who still read Copernicus’ and Galileo’s works, they would have studied his math proofs and geometry to predict lunar and solar eclipses, and to calculate “The Great Year,” “which is completed by the sun, the moon, and the five planets when they return together to the same sign in which they were once before simultaneously found” (quote from Censorinus AD 238; Ibid, p. 316).

That very high level of geometric expertise would have been invaluable in calculating planetary conjunctions with a high degree of accuracy.  Furthermore, the ability to correctly forecast the birth of a king was the Gold Medal of astrology/astronomy. Whoever they were, the Magi were convinced they had gotten this one right, and with a level of confidence so strong they were willing to travel from their homes somewhere east of Jerusalem, command an audience with King Herod and tell him right to his face!

Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him. (Mt 2:2, NIV)

Saying that to a reigning monarch is the kind of thing that could get you beheaded in short order. What stayed Herod’s hand? Perhaps the sight of this from an east-facing palace balcony:

Bethlehem Star 12Aug -03 Jerusalem 0210hrs. Star Chart by TheSky6 Serious Astronomer Edition. The proof, as they say is in the pudding. This is a natural sky view of the proposed Star of Bethlehem. See if you can spot it without scrolling down to the annotated version.

A Historical Event Reconstructed out of a Myth: The Power of Good Science and an Astronomy Software Program

Michael Bakich, a Senior Editor of Astronomy Magazine writes in the January 2010 issue:

The biblical account says that the wise men spoke to Herod about the star. Neither Herod nor his scholars knew what they were talking about. No other Bible verse or secular writing mentions the star. What was it? Could it be Matthew, the only gospel writer who mentions the star, wanted to prove to his readers what he knew from reading the Old Testament? I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh; there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out of Israel… (Num. 24:17). Did the writer of Matthew invent a story to fulfill this prophecy from Moses? Most historians don’t think so (p. 37).

The solution is most likely a planetary conjunction. It is not, in the end, the definitive answer, nor does it subtract the mystery and miracle of that night.

It was the Star of Wonder. And if this particular conjunction or cycle of conjunctions that occured in 3 BCE signaled the birth of the Savior, how we can rejoice what a clever God we worship!

Bethlehem Star 12Aug -03 Jerusalem 0210hrs with Annotations. Star Chart by TheSky6 Serious Astronomer Edition

One can only imagine what was going through the minds of the Magi as they pointed this astronomical event out to Herod and his astrologers, going over their data and calculations. We know what was going through Herod’s mind.

The conjunction would have been very bright. Jupiter was shining at a magnitude of -1.8 and was at 99.98% phase full (think full Moon), and Venus was at a shadow-producing magnitude by itself of -3.9 and 93.38% full phase! Regulus by contrast would have almost seemed dim at its very bright -1.38 magnitude, and Sirius, the brightest star in the northern sky at -1.44 magnitude was glowing high in the SW sky.

Star of Bethlehem with Magi Card

After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. Matt 2:9.

Merry Christmas and may the Blessings of the Christ Child Come to You and Your Loved Ones.


UPDATED: The Political Poll Bungee Cord: What a Difference Three Weeks Make

As American as apple pie, pie chart, that is.  


U.S. Political Party Affiliation. Image: Public Doman

On September 14, I published this poll chart below on the so-called national ballot for the House of Representatives from  It appears obvious to any observer that the Democrats (indicated by the blue trend line) were losing ground as fast the Republicans were gaining it.  But looking inside the data, plus getting out the ol’ Excel spread sheet and doing some analysis of my own, I realized that the national poll was missing some key factors.

For one thing, the national poll aggregate is made up of individual state race polls and then computed using specific criteria applied by (the old adage that all races are local races is true).  I also knew that the aggregate contained data compiled from a wide range of methodologies, as well as polls that were directly tied to political parties, who, even with the best intentions, will often introduce biases into their questions that favor positive responses for their candidates.

Here is the national aggregate House poll chart from September 14:


2010 National Congressional Ballot. Image:


For the purposes of our discussion, ignore the earlier results.  Just look at the roller-coaster for both parties since January 2010 through the present.  May appears to be the moment of truth for the Republicans and they continued to increase in a nearly linear fashion from then on while the Democrats declined on a similar downward slope.

Not so Fast!

In my previous post on this topic, titled, Where the Wild Thing Are I made this comment:

If this chart was the only one you looked at you would conclude that the Republicans have made huge gains beginning about May 2010 and now hold a 47.1% to 40.6% lead over the Democrats. And you would be wrong. Something is missing. First of all what about the undecided voters? Where are they? How many of them are there? What is their trend? For that answer, click here.

In that post, I then led the reader through the process of using the User Tools to come up with a much different looking trend line because it eliminated all the polls that either were of questionable reliability or directly tied to a political party.

On September 26, I spent an evening working on generating some of my own statistics using the polling results from the website.  Here is my Excel chart of the aggregate data, all polling groups included, my results came out at 47% Republican and 44% for the Democrats:


National Congressional Poll Aug-Sep 2010. Data Courtesy


By carefully watching the movement of the poll results and tracking the changes in the gaps, I became more convinced that the trends were changing, that it was possible the Democratic candidates were gaining, although I could not estimate how much.  One factor likely appeared to be the ending of the primaries, and the results from those races, if one ignored the pundits and the party-motivated spokespeople, I wanted to see what the trend was emerging.  It was time to fire up the Excel and do a bunch of number crunching and running through the Chart Wizard.  Except the new Excel doesn’t really have a chart wizard, so I fortunately know how to build the charts, having done it several thousand times having used one form or another of Excel since 1992.

At this point if you want to read the wonkish discussion and statistical analysis you can go to that page by clicking here.

The trend in the chart above confirmed my gut.  There had been an upturn for the Democrats but also for the Republicans.  One limitation of every chart is to decide what it means.  A trend line, in this case a “moving average,” does give one a picture of change, but does not communicate what is pushing the change.  The meaning, in one sense, is secondary.  I was interested in the trend, because the dynamics pushing the trend begins with individuals.   And as I pointed out in my post, The Black Poll Wars, Part II, the concept of one person, one vote no longer accurately describes the inner process of the American voter.  Rather, a theory I dubbed “isovoting” is based on the assumption that,

The transformation of the vote into a compilation of isovotes [that is, the subpersonal meaning the person assigns to different issues that must be reasoned into a single vote on the ballot]  is the key to understanding the American Electorate…The Uncertainty Principle [as defined by Heisenberg] shows that the isovotes cannot fit the Classical Statistical models for voter behavior. Like quarks in atoms, isovotes behave in dynamic ways that cannot be predicted with certainty either before or after they are observed, and that the very behavior of the survey taker will have a direct affect on the nature of the isovotes, especially with regard to the person assigning meaning to them, creating a new future for that person’s set of isovotes that did not exist prior to being polled on his or her preferences.

In short the uncertainty naturally built into the isovote process each person goes through when voting is too complex to discern, and components within the isovotes can change, sometimes affecting the others and sometimes not.  Therefore, following the trending becomes the only reliable methodology to ascertain the what will possibly take place on November 2nd.

That trend is beginning to emerge, but with caveats discussed below:


House General Ballot Chart 3 October, 2010. Image:


This scatter plot with the trend line, covers the same length of time as the first chart in the post, so neither of them are as sensitive in representing the  change over the past two months as the second chart I built using Excel.  Unfortunately, the flash function of the chart cannot be copied onto this post.  However, you can look at the same time frame, with all polling organizations represented by clicking here.  The gap between the two parties has shrunk to 44.2% for the Republicans and 42.8% for the Democrats.

The results get even more interesting, though, when you eliminate the less statistically reliable polls (which I include as the internet polls and the robocall polls; the first being difficult to ensure true randomization, and the second on the basis it is easier to lie to a computer voice asking the questions than it is to a real interviewer).

Bungee Jumping With the Polls

The trend using this second set of criteria can be viewed by clicking here.  The trend lines now have crossed with the Democrats taking the lead by a 45.8% to 44.5%. But whether this set of percentages is really good news for the Democrats depends on three factors.   First, how many people are registered as democrats and will vote as a faithful member of the party.  Second how many of those individuals will vote in the election.  And third, the most difficult questions to answer is how many people who are not Democrats, who either identify themselves as Independents or are Republicans who plan to cross party lines with their vote, will vote Democratic.  These caveats are not difficult to ascertain, but reading the subtleties of the trending, since it is always in flux is much harder to determine.  Therefore, it is possible that despite a percentage majority showing in the polls, the party with the upper hand in terms of percentage may still end up losing more races than it wins.


Voting--The American Way. Photo Courtesy:


Concluding Remarks

Using the considerable resources of and the Gallup Polling organization, we can come up with some interesting speculation about the coming election.  For example, we know roughly how many people are going to vote, 46.8 million Democrats and 46.4 million Republicans, a total of  93.2 million voters.  The percentage difference is 50.2% (D) to 49.7% (R).  That’s a tiny difference of only 466,000 voters compared to the national scale.  But that analysis is actually not correct, because these numbers represent the categories of voters, D, R, and I that will vote either Republican or Democratic.  Tucked inside the party’s totals are  14.7 million Independents who will vote Democratic and 18.9 million who will likely vote Republican in this election.  That is much larger gap of 4.2 points in the favor of the GOP. Another factor we can look at is registered voters, who are more likely to vote, and numerous polls distinguish between registered and likely voters.    I analyzed the polls that interviewed registered voters and came up with 31 surveys.  Plotting out those surveys, I came up with the following chart:


Data Courtesy of


Note: for an explanation of the R² number, please click here

UPDATE: Since I wrote the post I came across this very illuminating article on the issue of choosing “likely voters” in contrast to “registered voters” as the survey sample on the Huffpost Pollster (The Huffington Post has just acquired and integrated its sites into Huffington’s), by Mark Blumenthal (who originally founded  I recommend you read through his article.  He gives a nicely framed explanation of how pollsters choose who to survey and it is written for the general reader: “Likely Voters: How Pollsters Define and Choose Them.”

After reading Blumenthal’s article, I recalibrated the filters on the National Congressional Ballot on the Pollster site to only include those who surveyed registered voters.  To see the result, click here.  The results contradict the unfiltered chart that shows the Republicans up by over 7 points.  Instead by looking at the registered voters (which I hold are still in the highest percentage of all voters) the Republicans hold the thinnest of margin at 45.3% over the Democrat’s 45.0%  Statistically speaking this is a virtual tie.

Is the trend line good news for the Democrats?  Yes and no.  Any time one party gains ground and passes the other in the number of people who say they will vote for them, that is cause for at least cautious optimism.  But looking at the visual slope of the lines in the chart above does not indicate the Republicans have begun to dramatically slump.  A week from now, they could just as easily stopped the small downward slope and recovered  to  move above the Democrats again.  The positive factor for the Democrats is the R² of their trend is significantly stronger than the Republicans.  In other words, it may be evidence of more “oomph” behind the upward change in direction.

We are down to three weeks and counting.  The fun continues unabated.

Krugman Verifies the Bungee Cord

I’m sitting in the SFO airport waiting for final leg home from a week in San Diego at the National Disciples Pastors Conference.  Getting caught up on Paul Krugman’s NYT blogs.  Just read this:  He uses the same I used in my last post.

Just sayin’.  More when I get home and a good night’s sleep.  Typed this on my Droid, by the way.

Dumbing Down the POTUS

This post is not about George W. Bush.  Really.  Although he had a role in my thesis.  This post is about our current president, Barack Obama.  I don’t want there to be any confusion about that.

It finally struck me yesterday what the GOP is up to regarding the November elections, after four events, three of which were unusual, filled the majority of my day.

They were, in this order:

  1. I watched two hours of Fox News shows at the behest of my friend, Dr. John Bogen, who is politically as conservatively moderate as I am liberally moderate.  Many of the themes I discuss below were the primary topics of those shows.  (If you are a regular reader of Extreme Thinkover, you will remember John’s very fine posts last fall on the H1N1 Pandemic, both regarding vaccinations and his advice how to understand H2N1 H1N1 (thanks, John!).
  2. I read an article about how the White House allowed President Obama’s passport–yes the President’s passport–to be photographed to counter the ongoing idiocy of the so-called “birthers” who obstinately cling to the totally false accusation that Obama was not born in the United States.  The issue of people believing the President is a Muslim is so far off the scale of absurdity it doesn’t even get its own separate number.
  3. While wandering around a big box electronics store I started experiencing chest pains and deciding to err on the side of caution and went to my hospital’s urgent care.  All my tests came out negative, fortunately, but with my family’s history of cardiac artery disease I’ve earned a ticket to be the main attraction in my second stress test.  Thinking about one’s mortality is a sobering moment for anyone.  I also have health insurance.
  4. After I got home, I got to watch my favorite NASCAR driver, Kyle Busch, set a NASCAR record at Bristol Motor Speedway in Tennessee by sweeping the three races of weekend.

It was during the race it hit me what the conservatives are doing to try to defeat the Democrats this fall and to discredit not only the president but the presidency in every way possible for their advantage. Why during the race?  Maybe it had to do with the vagaries of a car race, the strategies, and the ever-present reality that each driver and his car only has so much control over what is happening to them.  Someone else makes the smallest of mistakes and you can be out of the race with your car a pile of scrap metal in a fraction of a second.  Or maybe it was just dumb luck.

You will remember, quite painfully if you are a person with any capacity to carry on a civil conversation with someone you disagree with, the Cirque de Chaos we had to endure during the Congressional recess town hall meetings last August over the Tea Party and health care and carrying guns around in public like it was the Showdown in the O.K. Corral.  This year, there’s hardly been a whimper over this.  That’s because the new strategy is much more subtle and the Far Right learned one lesson: viewer fatigue.  By the end of August last year, the “scream at your politician” gambit had backfired; most Americans get fed up with toddler-type tantrums very quickly.  Simply put, the Far Right overplayed its hand.

The plan this summer is to make the president look dumb.  Also incompetent, if possible, but definitely dumb.

Why?  Because Barack Obama is probably one of the smartest presidents in the history of the nation in terms of sheer intellect.   So the way to attack him is to create, in this case, two exceptionally dumb fabrications about him: he wasn’t born in Hawaii, and he is Muslim, and then keep feeding those very stupid lies by constantly just hinting about them or have pundits “debate” the issue on TV and radio.

Dumbing Down the POTUS. Image Courtesy Motifake:

This strategy works because there is no rational way to defend against it.  You can’t “put this one to bed” because there is no effective counter-strategy.  So the Republican leadership, now held hostage by the Far Right Wingnuts, can just keep the topic alive by continuing to feed their constituents who have bought into it.  And the way you do that is very simple: whenever the question is asked, you deny it, but ambiguously.

Last year, the Far Right tried shouting and threats of revolution.  It fell flat on its face.  This year they are trying lies and innuendo.  It’s a big gamble for the GOP because the Tea Party and other Far Right groups are much like a political multi-headed Hydra each with its own idea of who should be in control and what the outcomes should be.  But the Republicans lack a Hercules to control this beast.  Rep. John Boehner, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and RNCC Chair Michael Steele to a person lack the ability or imagination to keep these groups under control.  I suspect Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are hoping they can throw meat at the monster without getting eaten themselves.

The question is can the Democrats find their equivalent of a Hercules to cut off the heads, politically speaking, of the Right’s Hydra?  President Obama, in my opinion, is more than capable, as we saw him campaign for the office, but now as Leader of the Free World, his focus should be on his job, not slaying dragons.  The same goes for Vice President Joe Biden.  Sen. Harry Reid, in addition to being in the fight of his career to keep his senate seat, is the epitome of milquetoast.  Rep. Nancy Pelosi has the fire, but in addition to being speaker of the House, is in her own campaign.  The DNC’s chair, Tom Kaine, is an excellent administrator, but has wisely kept out of the spotlight.

I’ve heard more than one pundit and politician say the Democrats are disorganized and not responding effectively to the attacks from the right.  That may or may not be true.  It may be the Democratic strategy is to let the Far Right, with all their fractures run their course, and when they begin to collapse, pounce with the equivalent with a sledge hammer against a glass window pane.  In reality it would not take much for the Republican Party to implode upon itself.  The GOP’s structure is much more precarious than they are letting on.

In the meantime they are going to attempt to make the president look dumb, out of touch, incompetent, a threat to the American Way of Life.  He is none of those things, so eventually the truth will out.  I continue to read the polls with a huge grain of salt.  Now I know what I’m looking for, I’ll be able to tell more clearly what is happening below the surface.  November 2, 2010 is still going to be a very interesting election day.