Bush's Bad Bets

President Bush's behavior related to the Iraq war is like a compulsive gambler who won big, lost it all, and yet stays at the table hoping to win it big again.

When Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in 2003 he had just accomplished an exciting victory in Iraq. He bet the prestige and reputation of the United States on being able to defeat Saddam Hussein and he won. The thrill of the victory and congratulatory celebrations must have been intoxicating for this former compulsive drinker.

Unfortunately, flush with the stimulation from his success, he decided to keep all of his winnings in play and wagered on winning a bigger pot: remaking an dictatorial middle-eastern country into a Western democracy. If Bush had been a real professional gambler he would never put America's fortune on a game with such astronomical odds against him.

As should have been expected, all of the goodwill and success from his inital triumph was wiped out. The humiliation of his subsequent defeat should have driven him away from this losers' game and compelled him to make the same kind of pledge as when he gave up alcohol. The thing that is preventing this is that his countrymen keep supplying him with more resources to throw away. Even though Congress may complain about the effect Bush's compulsion is having on the country, they still act as enablers by slipping him enough to keep his fantasy alive that victory will be his yet again.

The answer to this problem is an intervention by his allies in Congress. His closest friends and supporters in Congress need to decide that if they really care about the President's welfare and if they want to end the detrimental effect his behavior is having on the country, they need to tell him the war is over and they will not support his compulsion any longer. It will be up to the President to decide if he really wants to change or to stop causing so much misery in the lives of our military families, but he has to be told that his friends will no longer passively stand back and let him do it.

Dr. Robert L. Custer, a pioneer in compulsive gambling treatment, defined a compulsive gambler this way:

Compulsive gamblers have lost control over their gambling. For them, gambling is the most important thing in their lives. Compulsive gambling is a progressive addiction that harms every aspect of the gambler's life. As they continue to gamble, their families, friends and employers are negatively affected. In addition, compulsive gamblers may engage in activities ­ such as stealing, lying or embezzling ­ which go against their moral standards. Compulsive gamblers cannot stop gambling, no matter how much they want to or how hard they try.

Replace "gambling" with "policing Iraq" and it sounds a lot like 43, doesn't it?

Suburban Teens Get Minimum Wage Raise

Liberals like to say that the minimum wage is too low for a person to raise a family on. It's true and it will always be true. The increase in the minimum wage on 7/24 won't change that. The good news is that myth of millions of Americans supporting families of four with just one minimum wage-earner is a big lie. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of minimum wage-earners are single, they work only part-time and they live in households with total incomes substantially above the poverty line.

As the politicians trumpet their victory in raising the wage, you won't hear them tell you that 53% of the affected workers are teenagers and college age adults. There will be no mention that they live at home where the median family income is over $64,000 a year. You won't hear them point out that many are food servers and others who work for tips, which are usually more than the hourly wages.

The workers over age 24 aren't doing too badly either. The vast majority live in households above the poverty line and the minimum wage earner has usually chosen to work only part time. In fact, only 6.1% fit the stereotype of being a single parent working full-time.

These statistics don't show the length of time that people are working for minimum wage before they get their first earned raise or move on to a different, higher paying job. Of course, if you were to believe the Democrats, the same people have been working at the same job, for the same pay, for the 10 years since the last increase in the minimum wage law. That's just ludicrous.

Still, there are a few people who are working at low paying jobs for long periods of time. If the government were serious about helping them it would study what factors are preventing these people from having or being able to act upon their ambition. A .70¢ an hour increase isn't going to fix that kind of problem.

So after reading the news you may have felt that a lot of poor people were going to have a better life after today, Well, the real truth is that some kids in high school out in the 'burbs are going to be able to buy an extra CD next week.

See the statistics reported in more detail in this report from the Heritage Foundation.

The Governed Consent to Unjust Powers Too

The Founding Fathers almost got it right when they declared “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” What they got wrong is that it is not only in free countries where the governed give their consent. It is in every country, with any kind of government (including totalitarian), that the people allow their leaders to rule them.

The reason for this is not to be found in Political Science; it is in Mathematics. The governed simply outnumber the people running the government. That huge numeric advantage provides the governed the power to make changes to the government at any time that they desire to pursue it. If the people of a country make a demand, exercise their combined compulsory force to block the government's maintenance of the economic, legal, and social order, and refuse to back down in the face of severe retribution, they will win. There is just no way the government can imprison or kill every person (or even a substantial minority) of the country.

The stickler in this process is that not enough people realize that they have this power. Even if a person is aware of it, they know that most of their neighbors and countrymen do not. The logical conclusion of both the the enlightened and the un-enlightened is to do nothing when the possibility of change seems slim to none. The result is that they have given their collective consent to the government tacitly. Here is the core of the philosophy. Consent of the governed does not usually come from positive action; it comes from inaction. When the realization of the power does occur and each participant is aware that the knowledge is wide-spread, it leads to the action behind great revolutions (e.g. France, Philippines, Eastern Europe). The crowds gathered in Wenceslas Square in 1989 shaking their keys may have been shocked to find out their power, but to someone understanding the power of the people it was like Glynda telling Dorothy, "You've always had the power..."

The good news for Americans is that the mechanics of our representative government allow for easy, non-violent ways for the people to make changes. Nevertheless, the same kind of disbelief in the power to affect change makes the majority feel like it is not worth trying to do anything but complain. The people of America are like the person watching a television show that they hate, but the remote control is just out of reach and somehow watching the disliked show seems less unpleasant that exerting the effort to get the remote.

If You Support Amnesty, Then Support It

The proponents of amnesty for illegal aliens have frittered away their opportunity to convince Americans that the “Grand Compromise” was good for the country. They needed to persuade law and order supporters that the doctrine of not allowing lawbreakers to keep their ill-gotten gains should be put aside in the case of the aliens’ sojourn in this country. Instead, the supporters spent the last month employing three counter-productive uses of rhetoric intended to obfuscate, not enlighten.

Their first device was attempting to reclassify amnesty as not “amnesty”. Resorting to reading dictionary definitions to buttress their case was ludicrous. The understanding of the American people is that amnesty meant allowing illegal aliens to live and work in the U.S. Since it was clear that the supporters favored legalization of residency and employment, to deny that they were in favor of their core position and worse, to agree that “amnesty” was something that no one wanted, only weakened their argument.

The second verbal volley they used was the passionate tirades about proponents caring about the country and opponents being un-American. Such tiresome antics showed people that the supporters were realizing that the proposal could not be argued or won on its merits. The effect of emotional outbursts was to encourage people to look even more closely at the details to see what the haranguers were trying to hide. Of course, analysis of the details would be the last thing the supporters would want to encourage people to do if they wanted to pass the bill.

The third and most deceptive remarks came in the last week before the final cloture vote. Accepting that Americans were more interested in enforcement than in giving away jobs to foreigners, the supporters went on the offensive by only talking about the enforcement provisions and dropping references to the fate of the illegal aliens within our borders. By that time it was of course too late since everyone already knew that independent analysis of the bill had revealed that the effect on illegal immigration was expected to be negligible.

I am happy that the bill as it existed at the end did not move forward, but I have some free advice to future proponents of amnesty legislation:

• Don’t deny your core belief. If you believe in amnesty, embrace it and convince others of the validity your position.
• Don’t use the played out response that the jobs held by illegal aliens are ones that Americans would not do. Explain why you believe it is okay for employers to try to maximize their profits by hiring cheaper labor.
• Admit that Mexicans and Central Americans would win while average Americans would lose, but provide convincing arguments why Americans should agree to it.
• Drop the deportation canard and explain how you believe it would be possible for aliens to remain in America even though they would have no source of income (with employment enforcement).
• Get a clue that it is not about a path to citizenship, it is about the right to live and work here. Explain why it would be okay for illegal aliens to be at the head of the line of people wanting to enter the country.
• Don’t pretend to be more compassionate-than-thou. There is nothing uncompassionate about helping people to get home to their own country. If I was stuck in a foreign country I would be very grateful if that nation provided help to get me home.

The good news about the defeat of “comprehensive immigration reform” is now the Senate can start work at crafting comprehensive immigration reform. The white flag senators can fade into the background and let those who want to do what is right and practical for the country lead the way.

The Wil Wheaton Effect (Part 3)

In this part I explore the motivation of Wil Wheaton's fans, specifically the many that use unusually vigorous language to comment positively about his blog. In analyzing the comments that readers have made, I have found three main motivating factors that would be a basis for their strong endorsements.

The first, of course, is content. Part 2 of this series explained how Wil's subject matter (such as Star Trek) is an important part of his popularity as his frequent use of sentimental language and themes. The question is why, in this age of distributed information and content, with multiple sources for similar information, would people read and comment so much about any one particular source. The answer is that people still want and depend upon core, centralized sources that they know are shared and referenced across their community. Consider anyone in the national government or national media as they refer almost exclusively to content from the New York Times and the Washington Post. The actual validity and importance of these two sources is not as important as people's perception that their peers consider these two newspapers as important and necessary. Being able to reference and support current writing in these papers then becomes a sort of shibboleth to let people know that you are part of a group and that you are plugged into its culture. Likewise, in the online writing community, people need core, supported sources and subjects, in order to establish and keep a connection with the community and prevent a Babel of subject matter.

The second motivating factor for Wil's readers is the concept of being associated with a famous person. Fame is something that a lot of people crave and if they cannot achieve it for themselves, then the next best thing is to work at being associated with someone who is already famous. The methodology for this scheme would be to get the attention of the famous person through nice (not scary) actions, such as lavish fawning over the famous person's work, words, and actions. The pipe dream is, of course, that the famous person will select you out of the thousands of fan to become their friend because of your extreme loyalty. (Personally, I think being friends with someone famous would have a lot of drawbacks and that the novelty would wear off quickly.)

The third motivating factor is also about making a connection to another person, but not because the other person is famous. Instead, it is because of a belief that there is some commonality or kindredness with the target. An obvious connection is geek-to-geek. This could be in the form of a crush, or just a feeling that you have found a person like you who would be fun to hang out with. This type of situation can occur with someone who has exposed their personality through writing or maybe an appearance on reality TV. It is in those situations where the reader or viewer has an opportunity to really "know" a new person much more than is likely to occur with the multitude of acquaintances all around them. As with the celebrity chasers, people bitten with this bug want to show the object of their attention how interested that they are in them.

I continue to read Wheaton's blog, but I have had to stop reading any of the readers' comments. The comments are just too transparently an attempt to curry favor instead of adding anything substantial to the discussion.

The Wil Wheaton Effect (Part 2)

Why is something more popular with the public than comparable items in the same category? Using Wil Wheaton's blog as a case study, we can see how its components maximize its popularity and turn a good blog into a internet superstar. The writing is interesting and done well, but there are a lot of commentaries on the internet that may also be as interesting but not read as frequently. The question is, what are the aspects of the Wheaton blog that would produce the level of popularity that it has attained?

To be in the upper stratosphere of popular bloggers, you need to be able to write satisfactorily - that's a given. No one is going to read what looks like sentences and paragraphs if the words are just strung together without structure and coherence. We need to look beyond that to see what characteristics provide additional credits to reach high score.

The largest component of the blog's popularity probably comes from the blogger being a celebrity. The public is strongly interested in knowing what celebrities are like in real life (consider the popularity of candid photos of celebs in their old clothes at the supermarket). While a picture gives us a peek at the celeb's personal life, the people still want the thousand words to fill in the gaps that even the unbridled imagination cannot. The pay dirt that fans look for to find the real person behind the staging is a star's own words, not filtered by publicists or crafted to create an image.

Of course any celebrity could just have their assistant type a few lines of fluff about their minor concerns. Here is where Wheaton differs from ordinary celebrity comments and enhances his level of popularity. He writes it himself, incorporating three value-add traits that put him above the rest. He writes about relateable things, he shows himself as financially and socially equal with his readers, and he interacts personally with them. At the same time, he retains the mystique of being a media celebrity that people can still see on their television.

Can anything else be added to the mix to enhance the celebrity value? You bet. The popularity of a celebrity can change over time, but the ones that hold a high steady value are the ones that have an association with a cultural touchstone, like Star Trek or Star Wars. Think about Carrie Fisher. No matter what her age or what she does, she will still cause people's pulse to race as they picture her in her hair buns or slave bikini. Likewise, Wheaton is a permanent fixture in the Star Trek firmament, and he will always benefit from its reflected glory.

Beyond the inherent value of celebrity, additional points are gained by Wheaton for providing the right subject matter. Here Wheaton really excels. His subjects are the four pillars of popular writing: everyday life activities, Hollywood, family situations, and unique perspective (as in being an original source of behind-the-scenes information about a popular television series). With these, Wheaton is playing four aces.

Finally,the writing style provides the extra extension on the pinnacle of success. Dry, factual writing would retain only a small but loyal readership. Instead Wheaton frequently uses a sentimental style, sometimes maudlin, and this style evokes an emotional bond with his readers that keep them coming back for more.

The question then arises, can this formula be replicated? It would seem unlikely. Perhaps the planets can only align for Wheaton and he alone is the once and future king.

The Wil Wheaton Effect (Part 1)

Unlike the barb that Mozart slammed Salieri with in the movie Amadeus as he credited a work of the latter as a source of inspiration ("A funny little tune, but it yielded some good things."), the acknowledgment I give here that Wil Wheaton's blog has given me several initial topics that I would like to address is more complimentary. He is the pro and I am the novice. I won't gush about anyone to the degree that his fans do because it is not my nature, but I will say the writing is often interesting and entertaining, no matter whether the subject matter is exciting or mundane.

Post one is about the well-worn topic of the animosity directed towards the character that Mr. Wheaton played on ST:TNG, Wesley Crusher. I offer a different position than Mr. Wheaton's stated belief that dislike of the character stemmed from the way he played the part or from bad dialogue or situations that the writers created. My position is that the hatred of Wesley came from the incongruity between what the physical appearance of a geek in space should look like and the natural appearance of the actor Wil Wheaton.

It was a great idea to put a super smart teenager aboard the Enterprise as it would possibly draw in additional teenage, geek-like male viewers who would be happy to see someone like themselves operate a spaceship and save the day. It would show them and society that the best looking fellows may have plenty of opportunities to be successful down on Earth, but the geeks of the world will control the heavens. Unfortunately, and I sincerely mean this as a compliment to Mr. Wheaton's genes, Wesley looked like a young male model with the physique (via costuming) of a Greek statue.

I suppose this could be referred to as wearing geek-face, but more importantly it made less attractive viewers angry that their position in Sci-Fi culture had been taken by a character who was clearly just a pretender. Instead of a geek, Wesley should have been a pin-up boy of the time, a famous child star who might have played a popular character named Wil Wheaton in a highly rated hologram series.

BTW, I believe the situation could have been mitigated by giving a lower status to the mother, Beverly Crusher. Instead, on top of everything else that Wesley had going for him, his mother was beautiful, a doctor, and an officer on the Enterprise. Too much. If instead she had been a space hag, or a scrubwoman, or had been played by Roseanne, it could have made Wesley's life not seem so perfect. It is all water under the bridge, but it did give me a topic with which to start this blog.