Phrase of the Moment:
¤ Phrase: "Alone... alone... alone..."
¤ Usage: Repeat the word repeatedly as soon as you are left alone in a room, even if someone else can be found less than ten feet away.
¤ Origin: We've got Dusty to thank for this one, since it's his habit. Whenever he's restless, or whenever both Malaya and me change rooms, leaving him alone in the living room or bedroom, he wakes up, looks around and begins sounding in a sonar-like fashion, as he repeatedly meows, each yowl at exactly the same pitch and tone.
¤ Notes: He's not actually saying "alone" of course, at least not that we know, but since he only does it when he's suddenly alone, either due to his wandering or our movement, it seems a reasonably translation, based on the context. Since I made up the "alone" joke, whenever Dusty wanders off and begins yowling pathetically in the otherwise-empty bathroom or bedroom or living room, Malaya and me amuse each other by saying, "Alone, alone, alone..." over and over again, in the same pitch that Dusty uses.

Hey, it beats, "Shut up!" which is what we used to yell, which had about as much effect on the cat as you might expect. -- August 16, 2004

 ¤ Here's a quick link I strongly recommend. It's a page on the National Weather Service page, with a series of photos of parts of the Florida coastline before and after Hurricane Ivan.  See five-story hotels collapse, homes vanish, and islands get cut in two.

I am writing to raise your awareness on issues surrounding child pornography. Anyone who posts comments, articles, information in a public forum has a huge public responsibility. I am really concerned about the content of this page on your site. Child pornography is an issue that has been constantly minimised and the effects hidden. The damage of this medium is devastating; every picture depicting child pornography is serious child abuse. To insinuate that this is an issue that is hyped up or exaggerated is simply untrue. You say that you strongly disapprove of child pornography but by attempting to minimise these issues, you are validating the actions of those who abuse in this way.

Please consider the following information:

• Pornography, especially child pornography, is used by pedophiles for three reasons: (1) to stimulate themselves; (2) to destroy the consciences and lower the inhibitions and resistance to sexual activity in their intended child victims; (3) to teach a child what to model in the sexual encounter with the adult. (Det. Bill Dworin, Sexually Exploited Child Unit, LAPD)
• 87% of molesters of girls and 77% of molesters of boys studied in Ontario, Canada, admitted to regular use of hard-core pornography. (Dr. William Marshall, 1983)

Furthermore, various legitimate studies have shown the correlation between those who use child pornography and those who go on to abuse. The cycle of desensitisation and acceptance of this behaviour is well documented as is the concept of escalation whereby the person viewing the pornography requires more and more deviant stimulus to achieve arousal.

Please consider the issues I have raised and if you want the information on your website to further add to the minimalisation and validation of these serious crimes.

There, that should be sufficient to get anti-kiddy porn crusaders, liberals, and pedophiles angry with me. And thus is equilibrium restored. 

thought my ongoing "discussion" with the CAP Alerts Guy must be boring everyone, but since several people mailed in since Wednesday's blog to say how much they were enjoying it, I guess it wasn't as painful for you guys as I feared. I'm still not going to stick his third response to me on this main blog page, but it is online on the new CAP Alerts Correspondence page. That page holds all of the emails between us, the introduction to my first email, as well as reader feedback to date.  And while I'm not posting CAP Guy's 3rd reply to me here (click here to read it) I am going to fill space today by posting the four reader emails I've added to the feedback section of that page.

As always, if you've got an opinion on the issue, feel free to share it.

CAP Alerts Correspondence Reader Feedback

#1) The first mail is from C, and was sent after I posted the first CAP Alerts Guy mail.

Just re-read your comments. You're just as obsessed with your truth as he is with his. For example, to his comment:

"But if only half of the folks who are adult homosexual practitioners engage in such abuse, that would mean the 3 to 5 victims per adult homosexual practitioner who chooses to sexually abuse children would actually be from 6 to 10 victims. And if only one fourth choose to abuse children, the number of victims rises to 12 to 20 per victimizer. If two plus two equals four..."

you replied:

"And yes, he really did say that not "every" gay male is a pedophile, and he really did estimate that just 50% of them are. You read that right. He honestly thinks that at least 50% of gay men are active pedophiles. Let that sink in for a minute. He's nuts. He really is mentally ill. I can't deny it any longer."

Whereas his comment only means, that the ones practicing pedophilia among homosexuals have greater percentage. The data he bases this statement on clearly proves that; calling him insane for this is not suitable for an Eric Bruce. Questioning the relevance of the data, or pointing out that the cause-and-effect is not illustrated by raw numbers would have been more like it.

There is so much more one could discuss about this; if I ever fly back to Frisco again we should meet and talk about this in person since I'm unwilling to type 40+ pages. Thoughts about deviancy and some sub-groups of it, like homosexuality, pornography, belief in gods and the like :)

Just do not get carried away, and do not EVER try to argue with those, who truly BELIEVE that there is an omnipotent entity judging them. They are not evil, not insane, just terribly, truly sad.

I'm not entirely sure what C is saying about my take on CAP Guy's "50% of gays are pedophiles" comment. As far as I know, and the CAP guy didn't clarify the issue in his next reply, he really, honestly, completely believes that 50% of homosexual men are pedophiles. Not just in thought or lust, in actuality, and he doesn't mean they get hot for 17 y/o teens a month from the age of consent; no he means these gay men are actively interested and even plotting to abduct and rape young boys of every age. CAP Alerts guy doesn't see his much-loved Jesse Dirkhising case as some sort of aberration; he thinks that's how every gay man is, in their heart of hearts. And that's why I am comfortable saying he's insane.

After all, even CAP Alerts Guy is willing to say 3% of the population is gay (he did so in one of these emails); he probably thinks this is a low ball figure, compared to the 10% some gay groups throw around. But that aside, just for the sake of the argument, say it's 3%. There are something like 135 million men in the US. Just making loose estimates, that's maybe 80m in their sexual ages, say 18-60 (don't quibble on the figures for now, I'm making very rough estimates). 3% of 80,000,000 is 2,400,000. 50% of that is 1.2m. So CAP Alerts Guy literally believes there are 1.2m active, boy-seeking pedophile gay men in the US. Sort of gives you a window into his paranoia and gay-obsession, doesn't it?  On the other hand, how can he think there's such a high number and so few Jesse Dirkhising-type cases? Or is that why he thinks there's such a pro-gay media conspiracy; that there are cases like this all the time and they never make the news because they get covered up?

And going a bit afield, if you want to look literally at C's last comment... isn't that the very definition of insanity? If some guy in the park is running around, rambling about how there's an invisible omnipotent being watching his every move and judging his every action and thought, and that guy does lots of weird stuff based on what he thinks his God demands, isn't that pretty much the clinical definition of insanity? Hearing voices that tell you what to do, or doing things for no logical reason? It's not the sort of thing that people are institutionalized for unless they're violent or dangerous, but it's still a form of mental derangement, if not outright insanity.

So yeah, guy in the park with his own private god = crazy. Ten million people in church on Sunday with equivalent beliefs = religion.  Strength in numbers, baby!

And no, I'm obviously not saying every devoutly religious person is insane. Everything is about degrees; people who refuse to take medicine or go to a doctor because they think God's going to heal them if they just pray hard enough are nuts. I have no problem making that statement. People who take strength and guidance from what they envision a benevolent God to be are fine. Clinically speaking they're delusional, since isn't that the very definition of a delusion? Believing in something that's not there and can't be proven by any scientific meaning? But obviously there are degrees of delusion, and plenty of people believe in Bigfoot, ghosts, UFOs, their horoscope, Baby Jesus, etc. It's all well and good for big Mr. Atheist here to pass judgment on them all and their little lives... just as long as I remember that most of them think I'm delusional or outright crazy for not believing what they so devoutly believe. After all, there's plenty of evidence and proof of it, in their minds.

#2) Reader mail #2 comes from Jordan, who mailed after I posted the second CAP Alerts reply to me.

Hi there,

I'm thoroughly enjoying the saga with the CAP Alert guy. His ability to blindly ignore any point you try and make, while going off on wild tangents and ignoring facts is phenomenal.

One thing I got to thinking about though is his wildly outrageous "50% of gay men are pedophiles" comment. Obviously that can't be the case, as it's a ridiculous number, but I think I may have figured how he got a number like that.

While I'm sure there are homosexuals who sexually abuse young boys, it's no lie to say that there are heterosexuals who do the same. By this, I mean that there are numerous (in fact, I'd say the numbers are probably larger, though percent would likely be the same) men who sexually abuse boys that do not consider themselves gay. They wouldn't have sex with an adult male, and aren't even attracted to them. While this may not account for his insane 50% mark, it certainly would increase the number if you were suddenly to state that all these straight men doing it were in fact gay.

The reason I think that this may be his stance is because not once is it mentioned that straight men would do this. It's always said by him (and you, for that matter) that the straight men would have to abuse the young girls.

Looking forward to the third reply from Mr. CAP Alert,
Jordan

I hadn't really thought about the issue Jordan brings up, and I'll address it in a minute.

During my emails I did consider bringing up the issue of men in prison; after all, are they really gay just because their only sexual outlet at that time is another man? Plenty of men do things with other men in prison that they would never do if they were free, and for them it's as much about sex as it is about power struggles, the human need for intimacy, boredom and confinement in close quarters, etc. I also considered the fact that almost every 15+ y/o male out there (and lots younger than that) would leap at the chance to have sex with an adult. The difference is that very few heterosexual teen boys get to nail a 21+ y/o woman, while lots of gay teens get to have sex with older gay men.  Men are whores, after all, young or old, and it's not as if heterosexual men have set a high standard for their pickiness when it comes to screwing any woman who will have them.

I didn't bring up either issue though, since you saw how the CAP Alerts Guy was in his emails. I tried very hard to keep him on a narrow range of subjects and tried not to go off topic (not that I succeeded at all) at all. It didn't matter; he twisted every argument into his comfort areas, regardless of whether or not I was actually talking about them, and if I'd brought up areas with a lot of shades of gray in them, like cases of pedophilia where the younger man is actually a very willing participant, or asked him if he considered gay rape in prison to be an actual homosexual act, it would have just given him the leash to go off on an entirely different issue.

As for what Jordan says, it's another touchy issue with a lot of shades of gray in it, and not something to be discussed with a homophobic Christian movie reviewer. But as Jordan says, pedophilia is varied in its forms, and plenty of men (and women) molest children of their own genders while being exclusively heterosexual in their adult relationships. Like rape, pedophilia is more often about power and control and sick, wounded individuals acting out in a way that makes them feel better about themselves. I assume most everyone knows that almost 100% of adult pedophiles were abused themselves as children. As Hannibal said about Buffalo Bill, "He wasn't born a criminal; he was made one through years of systematic abuse." a description that applies to most pedophiles.

Anyway, it's a good subject for debate some day, but not with Mr. CAP Alerts; that's way, way, way out of his little wading pool depth of immorality and human behavior.

#3) This mail is from Donnie, who had a lot to say, and who proves quite adept and picking out CAP Alert Guys' blatant hypocrisy. My comment is in black and not indented.

I must say that you have a lot more patience than I do. I once emailed the CAP Alerts guy, just a very short email asking why he thought that the animals in the movie 'Brother Bear' mentioning 'spirits' might not have been talking about GOD (in fact I think I emailed you about this very subject some time ago). His response to me was as short as the initial message, and said basically that the 'devil appears in many guises' (he also threw in a link to a quote from the bible, but I can't find the email so just take my word for it, that is what he does).

That is what he takes away from a cartoon that is meant to teach children love of family, respect for their elders, etc. It was at that point that I realized I didn't want to be on the wrong end of his list when he decided that GOD was no longer happy with him just doing movie reviews, and thus GOD wanted him to start punishing the sinners.

I decided to just let it go, though I am sure happy you didn't. I got at least 3 full LOL's out of his response to your second email. I am going to paste them right here in the order they appeared. They weren't technically one after the other in the email, but displayed in this format I seem to find it all the funnier (is funnier a word? Should I say more funny? Should I say more humorous? Damn. I just don't know).

"Our inability to grasp the meaning of something in the Bible is not a revelation that the Bible is unclear, contradictory or inconsistent but is a matter of our perception of it. In other words, there is nothing unclear about what God tells us. But since some of His statements do not fit some of our expectations, we attempt to make His Word suit our understanding, which distorts our perception of the Truth. Indeed, thinking the Bible contradicts itself is very convenient for those looking for freedom from accountability."

"...are all the result of our freedom of choice. Men did those things. Men who thought they could manipulate His Word into self-serving madness to fill their own bellies. Not God's will. Don't try to blame the evils we ourselves create on God's Word. That is shallow and reflective of closed minded thinking: closed minded in favor of excusing one's self from any manner of authority."

"I am not placing myself in any such "company." I have not killed any witches. I don't have any slaves. I am not fighting in defense of my property and family against those who would steal them such as when the Christians fought back against such oppression in Crusades (I'll bet you didn't know that). Indeed, you sound as one of them who would put me there just to fortify your claims. A typical technique of they who do not have an argumentative leg on which to stand."

Of course the last line of each of the paragraphs were the ones that damn near had me rolling, yet none more so than the third paragraph. I think that "a typical technique of they who do not have an argumentative leg on which to stand" would be to try to use convoluted verses written two-thousand years ago as my main argument. Maybe that is just me. It really seems like he sets out to try to make a point, but hedges himself right at the end. Perhaps he is thinking that if his faulty logic is not enough to make a point/win the argument, he will have some religious double-talk to fall back on in the rebuttal.

How about the actual words of his sentences, even aside from the intent? Remember, this guy was nitpicking on my emails for things he considered grammatical errors, and showing off the paucity of his vocabulary in the process of telling me "secondly" wasn't a valid word. And he typed these words:

"A typical technique of they who do not have an argumentative leg on which to stand."

That may be the single most awkward sentence I've read this month. Malaya, who graded thousands of tests and term papers during her career as a TA in grad school, glanced at his writing and attempts to nitpick my emails, and immediately had his measure. Her opinion is that he's not very bright, but that he's tried very hard and read a lot of grammatical rules books. So he knows how to construct technically-correct sentences, but he's got no ear for the flow of language. He's robotic, in a way, and writes for a style manual, rather than for a human to read and understand. He doesn't have the vocabulary to really elevate his prose past easy comprehension, but you can tell that he would, if he could, and would think it showed how smart he was. As if writing in a style that most people can't understand is a good thing, for a mass communicator.

In a weird sort of way, he reminds me of one especially-misguided 2-star review of Middlesex that I read on Amazon.com a couple of weeks ago. I can't link directly to it, but it should show up on this page, and if not you can sort them by "show 2 star reviews only" and scroll down; there are only 11 2-star reviews as of Sept 23, 2004, and it's the 11th one displayed. I'll just quote from the start of it:

Literary Fraud, September 30, 2002
Reviewer: A reader

This novel is a literary fraud. It has the appearance of substance, of the monumental and revelatory, but this is mere pretense. The writer worked hard on this book, perhaps too hard. It's painful to see the brute craftsmanship in this novel, to see the smoke and mirrors, each ember agonizingly blown into a tiny and meaningless flame, each mirror strung at an awkward, dangerous angle. It has the appearance of art, but it is actually an engineering feat masquerading as architecture. All the surfaces are sanded, polished, painted, gleaming. We see the author selecting his trees, measuring, cutting them down (sometimes by pen knife), carrying enormous stumps, yes, he is sweating and bleeding. We hear the hammering. We count the nails. Something has been erected. But there is nothing inside.

Did your eyes glaze over yet? I'll discuss this review in greater length when I post my Middlesex review, but my point, in this context is that this is how CAP Alerts Guy would write, if he could. Lots of words, lots of misdirection, lots of cleverness, but virtually zero content in the end. It's the writing of someone trying to seem far more clever than they really are, and while in the book review it's meant to mock the author of Middlesex (who really is that clever, at least judging by his brilliant writing), for the CAP Alerts guy it would be a way to say very little while seeming brilliant in the process.  All hat no cattle, in Texas terms.

That digression aside, here's the conclusion of Donnie's email.

While reading this email exchange between the two of you, I was reminded of one of the debates that I had back in High School. The debate was supposedly about the 'Spotted Owl' (which was an endangered species in Oregon at the time and I honestly don't know if it survived) which was a huge controversy in the Pacific NorthWest at the time. The Owl lived in 'Old Growth' trees that were being harvested for lumber. It was my assignment to debate why we should set aside the 'Old Growth' forests for the Owl, while the other guy had to debate against it. It was the only debate I ever lost.

My portion of the debate was mostly facts and figures; I showed the migrating habits of the Owls, the forests that they frequented and the such (I was only sixteen at the time, and the available media was all in print so I may have been totally wrong about all of it). His portion of the debate was to say, after every single chart, graph or statement that I presented, "My home is made of lumber, I like my home." Since I was living there at the time, I do know that the local sentiment was about 90% for harvesting the 'Old Growth', so I suppose I had to argue the wrong side. That doesn't change the fact that the other guy repeated the same line over and over again. I baited so many of my questions to get him to make a slip, never happened, all I got was "My home is made of lumber, I like my home."

In the previous scenario the guy was doing it just to fuck with me, but I think it is pretty similar to what the CAP's guy is doing; If you don't have any facts you just avoid the issue. If forced, it may be possible to try to make a point, but give yourself an 'out' with the last sentence, just in case your point is as misguided as your facts.

It is really a sorry person that has to make that kind of an argument.

#4) Here's a mail from Lars, which he sent after viewing the CAP Alerts Guy's second reply. The first double indented part is him quoting me.

Dear Flux,

please allow a short comment on your ongoing correspondence with Mr. CAP Alerts: It is entertaining as hell.

The quoted part:

"Just out of curiosity, and this is obviously hypothetical -- if scholars unearthed and translated a new hunk of the dead sea scrolls that were obviously written at the same time and by the same people who wrote what's in the bible today (leaving aside the numerous translations of the old scrolls, editing over time, deletion of much of it, etc) and the new scrolls said clearly and unequivocally that homosexuality was okay and not a sin and Yahweh was fine with it... would you change your opinion on homosexuality? "

is very interesting from a scientific point of view, because there is a psychological experiment very similar to your assumption that I just happened to read about:

In 1974 Daniel Batson, University of Kansas tried to prove a theory known as "cognitive dissonance". It is best described in the following words taken from a statement by Festinger, Riecken and Schachter (1956):

"Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart, suppose further the he has a commitment to this belief and that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it, finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his belief than ever before. Indeed, he may even show new fervor for convincing and converting other people to his view".

The experimental setup to evaluate the theory described above was a series of questions that was given to a group of students with Christian belief. They were divided into two subgroups, believers and nonbelievers based on their answers to the question "Do you believe Jesus is the son of god?"

They were asked to answer two series of questions concerning the content of the Bible, e.g.

"Do you believe that Jesus actually performed miracles?" Between the two series of question they were confronted with an article about which they were told the New York Times rejected to print it because of a request of the World council of Churches. Content of the article was the discovery of an ancient scroll near the Dead Sea which contains the following statement: "Since our great teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, was killed by the Romans, I am sure we were justified in stealing away his body and claiming that he rose from the dead. For, although his death clearly proves he was not the son of god as we had hoped, if we did not claim that he was, both his great teaching and our lives as his disciples would be wasted."

Furthermore, the article contained the remarks of several scientists that the scroll is authentic and it concluded with a statement that based on those facts the belief that Jesus is the son of god and with it the whole Christian belief has to be renounced.

The results of the experiment: Those who declared themselves as nonbelievers had an unchanged behavior in their answers to the first and second series of questions while the believers actually expressed even stronger belief in their answers to the second series of questions after being confronted with the article.

In conclusion, the experiment supports the predictions based on the cognitive dissonance theory.

Coming back to your example, the behavior of Mr. CAP Alerts in his response is in good agreements with the theory as well.

Interesting concept, eh? I have an article page about Religion, Nationality, and Sports Team Preference, and this email reminded me of it, for the blind adherence to _______, regardless of changing facts.  I've heard the term "cognitive dissonance" many times, but had never heard of this interesting experiment. I'm left curious about it though; what reasons, if any, did the people give for remaining unshaken in their faith once they'd been told authoritatively that the foundation of it was a big lie?  Did they simply refuse to believe what they were hearing?

In searching for some more info about this, I found thousands of articles referring to the aforementioned study, and thought this quote was a good one. It's about the basic issue of cognitive dissonance, not the particular experiment discussed above. Check the article for a few more paragraphs than I'm quoting here:

...Many social psychologists believe that this will trigger some general trend to restore cognitive consistency - to reinterpret the situation so as to minimize whatever inconsistency may be there. According to Leon Festinger, this is because any perceived inconsistency among various aspects of knowledge, feelings and behavior sets up an unpleasant internal state - cognitive dissonance - which people try to reduce whenever possible (Festinger, 1957).

Cognitive dissonance is not always reduced so easily. An example is provided by a study of a sect that was awaiting the end of the world. The founder of the sect announced that she had received a message from the "Guardians" of outer space. On a certain day, there would be an enormous flood. Only the true believers were to be saved and would be picked up at midnight of the appointed day in flying saucers. (Technology has advanced considerably since the days of Noah`s Ark.) On doomsday, the members of the sect huddled together, awaiting the predicted cataclysm. The arrival time of the flying saucers came and went; tension mounted as the hours went by. Finally, the leader of the sect received another message: To reward the faith of the faithful, the world was saved. Joy broke out and the believers became more faithful than ever (Festinger, Riecken and Schachter, 1956).

Given the failure of a clear-cut prophecy, one might have expected the very opposite. A disconfirmation of a predicted event should presumably lead one to abandon the beliefs that produced the prediction. Bu cognitive dissonance theory says otherwise. By abandoning the beliefs that there are Guardians, the person who had once held this belief would have to accept a painful dissonance between her present skepticism and her past beliefs and actions. Her prior faith would now appear extremely foolish. Some members of the sect had gone to such lengths as giving up their jobs or spending their savings; such acts would lose all meaning in retrospect without the belief in the Guardians. Under the new circumstances, the dissonance was intolerable. It was reduced by a belief in the new message which bolstered the original belief. Since other members of the sect stood fast along with them, their conviction was strengthened all the more. They could now think of themselves, not as fools, but as loyal, steadfast members of a courageous little band whose faith had save the earth.

Everyone knows how hard it is to change, if not for you than for most people. My view is that the more someone has invested in something, the harder it is to give it up. And when it comes to major things, like nationalism (country of birth/preference), sports team preference (the one you've been rooting for all your life), and religion (the one you were born and raised believing in), people have a lot of time invested in their beliefs. As the quote says, dropping a long-held belief system is very difficult, since it's not just change, it's accepting that what you used to believe in was worthless when you believed in it.  You've got time invested in that thing, and the concept of "sunk costs" is much easier to grasp theoretically than in practice. Studies show that most people will stubbornly keep eating a bad meal they've already paid for, or sit through a bad movie they've already dropped bought a ticket to, since most people get that "I want to get my money's worth." concept stuck in their heads. Trust me, I'm no exception, though I often try to be.

A more intelligent way to think about it is to accept the sunk cost, whatever that is. Money, time, effort, etc. You can't ever get that time, or money, or effort back; what you can do is cut your losses, learn from your mistakes, and move on, and making the best of what time/money/effort you have left. It's hard though, especially with cognitive dissonance clogging up our weak human minds and forcing us to justify things in any way possible.

Politics is something we'd least like to see cognitive dissonance dominate; people should be able to evaluate the situation at hand and change their approach when necessary. That should be obvious; as the situation changes, the best tactics are going to change as well. Ironically, this sort of maturity and retrospection is actually a political liability, as Kerry has found out with his Republican-applied "flip flopper" label.  Sticking to the same course, no matter how stubborn and unsuccessful your actions are, is seen as stupid and pig-headed in most areas, but for some reason, not in politics. I suppose part of that is that like with religion (and nationalism and sports team preference) people have a lot invested in their beliefs, and renouncing them, even a little bit, can feel like failure.

An easy ongoing example is the war in Iraq. People initially said it was needed to stop Saddam from making nukes. Once it was proven that he wasn't even trying to go nuclear, it became a war to get the lesser WMDs. Once those didn't exist it was because Saddam had ties to Al Quida. Once those didn't exist it was to remove a cruel tyrant from power. Now that he's gone it's to promote democracy in the Middle East and create a free Iraq. As Iraq careens towards civil war and other nations in the area are driven deeper into theocratic fascism in a predictable response to the US invasion of their neighbor, the war's purpose and the justifications to continue it will likely change again. Through all of these developments some people have indeed been able to rethink their initial opinions, (as the WMDs failed to appear and the lack of competent post-war planning became obvious, I shed all remnants of my initial tentative support for the invasion) but lots of people are just as gung-ho about the war now as they ever were, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Though the article doesn't use the term, this new this new flip-flopping article on Bush and Kerry points out another nice bit of cognitive dissonance: Bush supported tax cuts (largely for the rich, but let's not get into that here) when he was campaigning for president, since the Clinton years had produced a huge budgetary surplus. As the economy tanked under Bush's leadership and governmental expenditures skyrocketed, the surplus became a deficit, and Busy responded by... pushing for even more tax cuts, saying they were now needed to stimulate the economy.

The obvious lesson here is that plenty of politicians, and regular people, support something, whether it's cutting taxes or something else, and they feel they have to stick to that belief no matter what. I don't think we can pin all of that on cognitive dissonance, but it's certainly something to keep in mind when you see people supporting something against all logic. Or worse yet, find yourself doing the same.

<-- Previous  --  Next -->
Archives Index Page