Adios, Gov. Palin

Too much has already been written about the dramatic rise and fall of the inimitable Sarah Palin, and I have nothing substantive to add about the specifics. I will say that few politicians, or public figures of any profession for that matter, can lay claim to such a flawless record of pure entertainment. Watching her declare victory over her “assailants” by vacating her position of power because of their attacks was like watching a three year old try to blame gremlins for an empty cookie jar.

Double speak, annoying as it happens to be, is an art. It should not be taken lightly. You’ll notice that Bush’s inability to answer questions while cloaking his true motives drove him to speak in guttural platitudes. He never employed the subtle half-truths of his decomposing familiar, Dick Cheney. He just forcefully tossed out non sequitur, meaningless platitudes. The fact that Palin’s resignation remarks were not, despite their appearance, impromptu, but written ahead of time, only adds to her astonishing career statistics. She will be missed.

What strikes me about her resignation is that it is one of the few times in American public life (at least during my conscious awareness of it) that an ignorant, dumb person was called such and laughed off the stage based on those very failings. She and her apologists are complaining about unfair media treatment, but the harshest criticism was directed at legitimate issues: her inability to answer basic questions, her awful incitement of the base, her ethics issues, her abuse of campaign funds. There were plenty of absurd things like this, but if Levi Johnston is capable of bringing down a governor, perhaps we should choose leaders made of sterner stuff. And it goes without saying that even the most bizarre Palin rumors cannot approach the seriousness with which the right accused Hilary Clinton of murder.

No, she was chased away for being a fool. It is a testament to her absurdity and the continually vile character of her statements that she was dismissed so thoroughly while we put up with a second term of “W.”

The right perpetually emits a plaintiff wail, bemoaning too much “tolerance” in society (the most horrific voicing of this imaginary problem cam when Bush accused his opponents of being so tolerant that they wanted to give the terrorists therapy). Somehow letting people dress as they like, marry who they like, engage in the sex acts that they like (non-criminal), and generally express themselves aesthetically, has led to too much tolerance.

Well, I will agree both that we’ve become too tolerant of certain fashion trends, like fat people wearing tiny clothes, and are generally too tolerant. But our acceptance fails to the degree that we tolerate people like Palin on the public stage. Remember the pride with which Huckabee, Tancredo, and Brownback shot their hands towards their Lord when the GOP primary contestants were asked who didn’t “believe” in evolution? They should have mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed, yet their political and public careers continue.

Palin represents someone who wasn’t tolerated for legitimate reasons. Knowledge, ability, intelligence, decency, competency, and ethical behavior are all virtues, the lack of which should not be tolerated. Skin color, sexual preference, gender, and other aesthetic characteristics must be tolerated because they alone give no indication whether someone possesses any of the qualities listed in the first group.

I know it’s only a matter of time before a wet-mouthed Chris Matthews begins to drool over the well-sculpted Mitt, but for now I am pleased that someone was sent away for just being incompetent.

A Shot Across the Bow

I included the video above because it plays on a sort of failing or weakness of human reasoning that I find fascinating. The most important part of the trick isn’t the sleight of hand or anything complicated, it’s just the bald advancement of a lie. The magician offers two possibilities for removing the rubber band from the mark’s thumb: break the band, or pull it over the top of the extended digit. The assertion is reasonable on its face, but once it’s accepted any observer's attention has been sufficiently distracted to complete the trick. The mind will be focused on watching for the two offered possibilities and miss the relatively simple maneuver. Everything else is merely a lot of show to compliment the initial lie.

I stumbled on this video while goofing around on YouTube and was immediately struck by the elegance and clarity with which it describes a tactic used almost perpetually in all manner debates and arguments. Charlatans, hucksters, and even well-meaning advocates engage in such of trickery. Why wouldn’t they? It’s an astonishingly potent technique. As powerful as our brains happen to be, it is still extremely easy to fool a human, especially when they aren’t armed with sufficient knowledge. It’s unlikely that you’ve thought about or given study to rubber bands, so the trick attacks most people in a dark area of ignorance. Who can honestly say that they were aware of a third way when the magician began the trick?

Given that even the smartest of us are incapable of knowing even tiny fraction of available data, superficially reasonable claims are always dangerous. In the hands of a deft polemicist or motivated proponent, those types of statements serve as an opening. They’re the captured beachhead that reinforcements flow through.

Use of the plausible, false premise is evident in every issue worth arguing about, but rarely with the childish transparency with which it’s employed by conspiracy movements. Though it has finally begun to die, the 9-11 “truth” movement still manages to seduce people with such claims: “Fire can’t melt steel,” “cell phones don’t work at 30,000ft,” “the towers collapsed at free-fall speed.” They are all basically equivalent to, “there are only two ways to remove this rubber band from your thumb.” They carry that hint of superficial plausibility, but are simply incorrect. One could argue that most people should casually be aware of the problems with the first quoted phrase, but when I encountered the cell phone claim, I certainly had no knowledge base sufficient to counter the point. The more extravagant stories generated by the decadent movement sprout from those basic false premises. Elaborate tales about Israeli agents and secret technologies, like voice mimicing machines and silent explosives, are the flashy hand movements that distract the eye from the simple rubber band trick.

If the technique was restricted to magicians and conspiracy theorists it would hardly be worth bringing up, but a quick survey of more relevant political and social issues reveals endless examples. In economics: “lowering taxes stimulates the economy.” In health care: “competition between private insurance companies is better for the consumer.” In sports: “steroids don't really benefit baseball players (long since debunked).” Each of those claims serve or served as a foundation for complicated structures of belief and elaborate rationalizations, and each can at least be seriously challenged, if not falsified outright. Yet proponents of each of those belief structures will advance the foundational false premises when defending their position. Reliance on the idea that the liberated marketplace is always better for the consumer because it increases quality and lowers price is almost single-handedly stalling health care reform, a program supported by 70% of the population. It also happens to be clearly untrue with respect to health services.

The defense against the tactic, fortunately, is equally simple. It merely requires a healthy testing of the point advanced. Trial by criticism, as it were. I chose the video to christen this blog because of its artful, unapologetic use of the method, and the perspicacity of the magician's explanation. As a sort of mission statement, I would identify my blogging goal (after making LOADS of money) as applying criticism to the various magicians and snake oil salesman that threaten better culture. As often as possible I will ask whether there isn’t, in fact, another way to remove that rubber band.

I would be advancing my own brand of deception were I to claim that this could done consistently without error. I welcome the same skeptical treatment of my posts from others.