What Is Dividing Us As A Nation?I am going to preface this today with a video from the show where Alex Castellanos proved that conservatives can't listen, think, and understand anything that their handlers haven't taught them to.
The Conservative Problem:Right now after several public discourses involving a difference of opinion about the present state of affairs having to do with our knowledge of the actual historical facts and relevance of evidence, it has become evident and should be noted that most conservatives, although the science industry they seem to disavow and hate - has tried to excuse them from responsibility for - they just won't believe or understand things that are inconvenient for them to explain. Anyone who has lived with a person with dementia has experienced the same thing. When something that is blaming (affixes guilt) or causes them to feel any beginnings of an inkling of shame, or would require a response involving some actual correction of a problem, they just deny that it is real, which is easier than believing the problem exists. I say that in that manner because I have seen someone who was given facts by an authority figure insist while watching "black and white evidence" presented before them, that it was fictitious. Somehow they believe that some magical act of diversion, slight of hand, or deception to those without "conservative" vision are being deceived and it explains the whole reason that Barnum and Bailey became famous.
Abe Lincoln said that, "You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
P.T. Barnum said that the only person who can be fooled every time is the one who is convinced that he can't be fooled.E.G. After Alex Castellanos sat at the same table with Rachel Maddow the other day and in his usual condescending manner stated that she was misinformed that women were actually paid less in the United States for doing the same job, she then stated her references and the statistics that were documented by a national study that proved her whole point, but he not only wouldn't shut up long enough to quit interrupting her while she spoke on what most of us would have considered a matter of research, even after he made his point, he had to keep repeating that she was wrong. I went through, like most people who actually use critical thinking, a few reasons in my own mind, why he might have been at odds with her view.
Reason #1) To me, this made me wonder at first, if she might have been wrong, after doing the research myself, I can see she was not only correct, she was quoting the exact information on the study. Her information was completely accurate.
Reason #2) Alex Castellanos is an expert on these matters and so has other statistics that he can refer to as to why she was wrong. He stated that men actually do approximately 47 hours work when working a job they get paid for forty hours of and that women, on the other hand, will only work 41 hours while getting paid for forty. I am trying to find what brain trust came up with those figures.
From Wikipedia: "... Alejandro "Alex" Castellanos (born 1954) is a U.S. Republican Party political media consultant who specializes in television advertising, and was a top media adviser to George W. Bush's 2004 presidential campaign and Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign . " This man opposes Equal Opportunity Employment and anything that isn't part of the present pro-corporatism dialogue that has become the better part of Republican speeches.
I found the article that shows the disparity and figures that women are under with nine more statistics than this on the internet at "Collegetimes.us" that everyone in the United States should be aware of, at http://collegetimes.us/10-surprising-statistics-on-women-in-the-workplace/ .
So, unlike Castellanos, Maddow backed up her statement with facts. The fact that, when given this information, it was more convenient in Alex's mind to dismiss something that was an inconvenient truth for him at the moment as "just plain wrong" instead of being teachable and conceding that he might have been incorrect, just never occurs to him or any other true conservative because part of the being a true conservative is being able to self delude yourself into believing that you are always right and that never admitting that you are incorrect, despite the evidence evident to everyone around you and shown by everything around you - somehow makes you right 100 % of the time. Most of us call that being a Neanderthal, being ignorant, blind, truly tunnel visioned with no help, or ego centric. That is why all the public discourse, public debate, etc. doesn't do any good when it comes to Republican candidates, because when they supposedly debate each other over their "issues", they nitpick on circumstances surrounding a completely ignorant and wrong premise instead of challenging the premise itself.
Watching the Republican debates, for me, is like watching a demented gourmet who, while having a mental breakdown, decides to find several other people in the same stage of dementia, and just like himself, they each have an "opinion" (although most people know immediately that facts aren't open for debate or a matter of opinion) on the heated debate over the proper type of sauce to put on a dog turd before eating it, in order to make it more palatable. They definitely wouldn't eat it themselves but they want "the little people" to accept this as an alternative to food stamps.
It doesn't seem to occur to that person that avoiding the dog turd is the answer. When they have argued over and been given a selection of manners of preparation methods, cooking times, temperatures, and methods, eating it and having been given a myriad of choices by their "handlers". The handlers I speak of are their masters. I am speaking of the political pundits and others who they consider their authorities, including clergymen, politicians, and celebrities.
Refusing to believe in reality - shows that once again the dilemma of being the one who is trying to be fair and respectful in any type of decision making process and allowing for their "opinion" in any social situation, legal, jurisdictive, or financial means that to them, you already lost the argument. It is no wonder that they don't seem to be able to be "politically correct", it isn't a choice for them since they believe whatever they think is supreme knowledge that supercedes all other priorities.
And in taking a risk at being politically incorrect myself, I will just say that the one contributing factor about conservatives that I am seeking to understand, is that which will cause me to look like I am not being fair- OR is something I will just let the dictionary decide for me.
From Dictionary.com/ "...Stupid: [stoo-pid] adjective, stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est, noun1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue."
Although some teaparty members and such of the Republican followers who seem to appear like a crowd of homeless people in order to hold up signs that are mispelled complaing about things that never happened or will never occur are what I would say fall into this characterisation, I can't believe someone of a position of respect and authority in the community could be "stupid" as it is stated in the dictionary, there still seems to be something wrong, let's ask for another definition and see if it fits.
"...Delusional: [dih-loo-zhuh-nl]1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.
Example Sentences Origin
2. Psychiatry . maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.
Sometimes, de·lu·sion·ar·y ."
I think that I've made my point. If you read the sentence used to describe the first definition, concerning a senator that believes in bipartisanship, it makes my point altogether. If you get a conservative alone and ask them a question they aren't familiar with about a topic - he either pulls out a list of things he has memorized, or has to go back and check with his "handlers" to answer it. Where most of us actually think in terms of being fair and respectful of others or what will do the most common good for all, not just a few, we can answer those questions based on fairness and common sense logic, using critical thinking for tough decisions, we know internally what we should do. We all in a somewhat softer, more humane way, commonly decide what we should do and seek the others who like ourselves, seek the truth and common sense without being jaded, to reassure ourselves that the world hasn't gone mad when something bad happens to us. I think I can safely say that this is the biggest diffence between what we know and all the knowledge that is out there available in the Universe.
Personally, I would rather seek the latter.