I don’t remember whether the ‘Clinton’ shot was at Spruce Run Reservoir or Round Valley Reservoir. One or the other. Did you know that Round Valley Reservoir is filled by pumping water from the Spruce Run Reservoir and is round because it is the site of a volcanic caldera? Like Krakatoa, that sort of thing. A long, long, long time ago; you know, 6000 years ago when the earth was created by an invisible man who lives in the sky.
It seems reasonable to speculate that Armando is so hard on Obama in part because he is an Obama supporter—and because Obama is running well below (a hypothetical) potential. When Armando was still hoping for Dodd, he had little to complain about in his candidate, who pretty much has reached his potential (and right now is working to save our butts).
As usual a way of explaining something has come upon me unbidden, for the brain does most of its work out of view.
Simply put, I do not make a case for my ‘reasoning’ on matters such as whether the way in which Obama attracts people is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and probably on lots of other things as well. I have said that such persuasion is not a goal of mine; but sometimes I do give more details on my ‘thinking’. Why would I do that if I am not trying to make a case?
Suppose I went into a city council meeting and tried to make a case for the solution of <pick your favorite mathematical equation>. Am I going to get very far? No set of debating points will suffice. What I need is not debating points, but for the council members to have their brains trained, with great difficulty, in solving that sort of mathematical equation.
Now I say, why should it be different in the daily life of a human being in a highly technological society? How could it be that methods of debate would suffice for finding solutions to our complex life problems? ‘Making a case’ cannot succeed; success requires training in new habits. To ‘convince’ a person of my general outlook means, to me, re-training that person’s habits so they are capable of solving that problem.
To a degree, this can be done even if the person, whom I would like, ideally, to ‘convince’, rejects my way of looking at a problem. Thus I succeed even when, from the traditional ‘debating points’ perspective, I have ‘failed’. I do not ‘succeed’ or ‘fail’, but rather succeed in different degrees, and I do so gradually, and it can be done no other way.
I go into a bit of detail sometimes in part to reinforce my own habits, and in part because I want to make an imprint on people’s brains (‘Don’t think of an elephant’).
The above explains why I say it has taken me more than a decade to develop my current way of looking at matters. Cramming will never get you through a rigorous mathematics exam.
postscript: Putting stuff like ‘fail’ in quote marks is meant to indicate I am talking about the bipolar ‘fail’-‘succeed’ instead of degrees of success. The need to make this and other tough distinctions explains my frequent use of quote marks.
postpostscript: Psychotherapy, music therapy, etc, can work similarly, I imagine.
Just like 9ll -- three steel framed skyscrapers in New York City blew up due to fire.
Look what we are up against, people who do not merely believe an incorrect theory but can’t even agree on the things that are checkable. The Twin Towers weren’t steel-frame skyscrapers, and they did not blow up. (The third skyscraper must mean #7. I don’t need to bother talking about it.)
Not that the Twin Towers wouldn’t have collapsed had they been steel-framed skyscrapers, instead of the tube-like structures they were. Maybe they would have collapsed in a different way. The part of the Pentagon above the hole punched by the 757 eventually collapsed, and the Pentagon is a steel-frame structure.
(BTW if there had just been a fire and no impact then the Twin Towers may have stayed up, because the fire-protection material wouldn’t have been shaken off of the steel parts.)