Another Example of Being Autisitc

I looked at the clock just now; it was 3:43 PM. 343, I said to myself. 7 x 7 x 7 is 343. But, I continued, the time 3:43 does not refer to the number three hundred and forty-three, because the first 3 means 3 x 60, not 3 x100. 3 x 60 minutes past noon or midnight, plus 43 more minutes. 3:43 on the clock  means 223 minutes past noon or midnight, past noon in this case.

Then I said to myself, wait -- is 223 a prime number? And I soon discovered that it was, because it not evenly divisible by any of the primes 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, or 13, and the square of the next-highest prime, 17, is higher than 223. It is 289. 

It took me about 10 seconds to do that math in my head, and to double- and triple-check my math, and to be certain that 223 is a prime number. Without a calculator, without pencil and paper. Not Rain Man. But above average. 

This is an example of why I got frustrated with people who couldn't do the math back in March 2016, when Obama, Rachael Maddow and I told them that Hillary had clinched the nomination. 

Also, I am autistic, and for 9 1/2 years I haven't been able to explain to a single person how it was that Barack, Rachel and I knew. I assume Barack and Rachel have both been able to explain it to at least a few people, because they both have far more people paying attention to them, and also because neither one of them is autistic: they're both much better at talking to people, at persuading people. 

Dover Books on Mathematics, at Amazon: https://amzn.to/40CvBwT 

Praise From Obama or a Diss From Trump

I'm not good at making money. I would like to have lots and lots of money, but I never have had much. I think my difficulty with making money is one result of my autism. But I'm not sure about that.

For 9 years, the main thing I've been doing to try to earn money is writing this blog. That may be absurd. But I don't know what else to do.

I don't know how to market my blog. Some days I have very high page counts, some days very low. Some individual posts get many more views than others. But whatever happens, it's a surprise.

I daydream a lot about becoming financially successful. (Maybe that's a big part of my problem right there: maybe successful people never daydream about success. That would go directly counter to all of those motivational speakers and authors telling people to visualize success. But I don't think that necessarily means it's incorrect.)

The nearest approaches to success I've had so far with the blog, the biggest amounts of pageviews, have come when someone with a large readership mentions one of my posts: a popular blogger, or a magazine not terribly far from The Main Stream.

And so I daydream about people like Barack Obama doing things like tweeting about my blog. Seems like something like that could be a big boost toward my having something people would call a career. There are many people who could be a big help to me with a single mention, but I've been thinking -- daydreaming -- that perhaps no single person could help me more with a single tweet, than Barack Obama.

Then today I thought: what if Donald Trump tweeted about me? Would that help me even more than a tweet from Trump?

I can't imagine Obama tweeting something negative about me: either he'd have something nice to say, or, surely, he wouldn't go out of his way to diss a nobody like me. I can't imagine Trump tweeting anything but negative things about me. And as we know, he not above going out of his way to diss nobodies.

A tweet from Obama, something along the lines of:

"Here's a blog written by Steven Bollinger, an interesting writer who's not very well known. Essays on all sorts of topics, from wristwatches to renewable energy to politics to ancient Latin, and many other things. Thoughtful, witty, fascinating writing."

-- would almost certainly catapult me into what is known as a career. But what if Trump tweeted something like:

"Small-time creepy loser disabled autistic blogger, sympathetic to loser NYT and loser MSNBC and lib Dems, takes pathetic potshots at me. A complete loser in life, jealous of my huge success. What a pathetic jerk! Sad!"

? Many, many people now say up whenever Trump says down and night whenever he says day, and who can blame them? Almost certainly, many people would praise me and my writing just because Trump dissed me, without ever actually going to the trouble of reading something I'd written. Many others no doubt would actually read my blog because of Trump's tweet, and some of them might like it.

I wonder whether there's some action I could take which would lead directly toward my having financial success, something which has never occurred to me, but would've occurred to almost every non-autistic person in my position?

I wrote above that almost every reaction to a post on this blog is a surprise to me. There is one exception: posts like this one, in which I write about how badly I want fame and fortune, almost always get far fewer pageviews than my average post. That makes me sad for several reasons, one of which is that I think these posts are very interesting and entertaining. It's okay to laugh at these posts, it doesn't necessarily mean you're missing the point.

American Political Prose

"As the weakness and wants of man naturally lead to an association of individuals, under a common authority whereby each may have the protection of the whole against danger from without, and enjoy in safety within, the advantages of social intercourse, and an exchange of the necessaries & comforts of life: in like manner feeble communities, independent of each other, have resorted to a Union, less intimate, but with common Councils, for the common safety against powerful neighbors, and for the preservation of justice and peace among themselves. Ancient history furnishes examples of these confederal associations, tho' with a very imperfect account, of their structure, and of the attributes and functions of the presiding Authority. There are examples of modern date also, some of them still existing, the modifications and transactions of which are sufficiently known." -- James Madison

"Mr. Clay's eloquence did not consist, as many fine specimens of eloquence do, of types and figures -- of antithesis, and elegant arrangement of words and sentences; but rather of that deeply earnest and impassioned tone, and manner, which can proceed only from great sincerity and a thorough conviction, in the speaker of the justice and importance of his cause. This it is, that truly touches the chords of sympathy; and those who heard Mr. Clay never failed to be moved by it, or ever afterwards, forgot the impression. All his efforts were made for practical effect. He never spoke merely to be heard. He never delivered a Fourth of July oration, or an eulogy on an occasion like this. As a politician or statesman, no one was so habitually careful to avoid all sectional ground. Whatever he did, he did for the whole country. In the construction of his measures he ever carefully surveyed every part of the field, and duly weighed every conflicting interest. Feeling, as he did, and as the truth surely is, that the world's best hope depended on the continued Union of these States, he was ever jealous of, and watchful for, whatever might have the slightest tendency to separate them.

"Mr. Clay's predominant sentiment, from first to last, was a deep devotion to the cause of human liberty -- a strong sympathy with the oppressed everywhere, and an ardent wish for their elevation. With him, this was a primary and all controlling passion. Subsidiary to this was the conduct of his whole life. He loved his country partly because it was his own country, but mostly because it was a free country; and he burned with a zeal for its advancement, prosperity and glory, because he saw in such, the advancement, prosperity and glory, of human liberty, human right and human nature. He desired the prosperity of his countrymen partly because they were his countrymen, but chiefly to show to the world that freemen could be prosperous.

"That his views and measures were always the wisest, needs not to be affirmed; nor should it be, on this occasion, where so many, thinking differently, join in doing honor to his memory. A free people, in times of peace and quiet -- when pressed by no common danger -- naturally divide into parties. At such times the man who is of neither party, is not -- cannot be, of any consequence. Mr. Clay, therefore, was of a party. Taking a prominent part, as he did, in all the great political questions of his country for the last half century, the wisdom of his course on many, is doubted and denied by a large portion of his countrymen; and of such it is not now proper to speak particularly. But there are many others, about his course upon which, there is little or no disagreement amongst intelligent and patriotic Americans. Of these last are the War of 1812, the Missouri question, Nullification, and the now recent compromise measures. In 1812 Mr. Clay, though not unknown, was still a young man. Whether we should go to war with Great Britain, being the question of the day, a minority opposed the declaration of war by Congress, while the majority, though apparently inclining to war, had, for years, wavered, and hesitated to act decisively. Meanwhile British aggressions multiplied, and grew more daring and aggravated. By Mr. Clay, more than any other man, the struggle was brought to a decision in Congress. The question, being now fully before congress, came up, in a variety of ways, in rapid succession, on most of which occasions Mr. Clay spoke. Adding to all the logic, of which the subject was susceptible, that noble inspiration, which came to him as it came to no other, he aroused, and nerved, and inspired his friends, and confounded and bore-down all opposition. Several of his speeches, on these occasions, were reported, and are still extant; but the best of these all never was. During its delivery the reporters forgot their vocations, dropped their pens, and sat enchanted from near the beginning to quite the close. The speech now lives only in the memory of a few old men; and the enthusiasm with which they cherish their recollection of it is absolutely astonishing. The precise language of this speech we shall never know; but we do know -- we cannot help knowing -- that, with deep pathos, it pleaded the cause of the injured sailor -- that it invoked the genius of the revolution -- that it apostrophised the names of Otis, of Henry and of Washington -- that it appealed to the interest, the pride, the honor and the glory of the nation -- that it shamed and taunted the timidity of friends -- that it scorned, and scouted, and withered the temerity of domestic foes -- that it bearded and defied the British Lion -- and rising, and swelling, and maddening in its course, it sounded the onset, till the charge, the shock, the steady struggle, and the glorious victory, all passed in vivid review before the entranced hearers." -- Abraham Lincoln

"A while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, six-two or six-three, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he’d joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. As I listened to him explain why he’d enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Shamus as well as he was serving us? I thought of more than 900 service men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who will not be returning to their hometowns. I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one’s full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or with nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

"Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure. John Kerry believes in America. And he knows it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga.

"A belief that we are connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief—I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper—that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one.

"Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America—there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." -- Barack Obama

"Obama is, without question, the WORST EVER president. I predict he will now do something really bad and totally stupid to show manhood! [...] I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke. [...] Everyone knows I am right that Robert Pattinson should dump Kristen Stewart. In a couple of years, he will thank me. Be smart, Robert. [...] Wind turbines are ripping your country apart and killing tourism.Electric bills in Scotland are skyrocketing-stop the madness [...] Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! [...] Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus????? ...Also, there is NO COLLUSION!" -- Donald Trump

Warren "Troubled" By Obama's $400k Speaking Fee

Ah, Geez, Elizabeth too? I expected Bernie to have a problem with it, but I thought Elizabeth was smart enough not to be bothered unless and until there was some shred of evidence that Barack had actually compromised himself. When Hillary was asked why she took nearly $1 million from Lehman Bros, she nailed it: "That was how much they offered." Elizabeth, Barack, Hillary and I and every other Democrat, as far as I know, wants to overturn Citizen's United. But until that happens, there's no reason for us to shoot ourselves in the foot or penalize ourselves because we'd rather be pure than defeat Republicans.

Another example of what I'm talking about occurs to me: A lot of people criticized George Bernard Shaw for portraying the Salvation Army -- pacifists -- taking a cash donation from a billionaire arms dealer in his play Major Barbara.

You know who wasn't upset by it? Actual members of the Salvation Army. One of them put it this way: if an arms dealer wanted to give them money, they'd be more than happy to get it out of the Devil's hands and into the Lord's. He mentioned also that the Salvation Army -- teetotalers -- often had meetings inside bars and accepted donations there. He didn't seem in the slightest bothered by suggestions that the Salvation Army compromised itself in such ways.

Anyway: Elizabeth, I'm sure you've heard of George Bernard Shaw. I don't know whether you've seen or read Major Barbara. Shaw's Preface to the play is awfully good, as his Prefaces tend to be -- better than the plays themselves for me, although I suppose for most people the plays are crucial. The plays aren't bad, but the Prefaces are brilliant. It is in the Preface to Major Barbara that I heard about people objecting to Shaw's depiction of the Salvation Army, and the much more sensible reaction of the Salvation Army itself.

Hillary and Barack haven't sold themselves. How about waiting for evidence that something is actually wrong before becoming "concerned"?

So You Admire Obama? Or Sanders?

All of these people who say they love everything Barack Obama has ever said or done, but don't seem to have seen or heard almost everything he's said and done in the past couple of months, which has been: enthusiastically endorsing Hillary and campaigning for her non-stop, saying that there has never been anyone more qualified to be President than she is. Saying things like,

“Everything’s we’ve done is dependent on me being able to pass the baton to someone who believes in the same things I believe in. So if you really care about my presidency and what we’ve accomplished, then you are going to go and vote.”

Or:

“Even in the midst of crisis, she listens to people. And she keeps her cool. And no matter how much people try to knock her down, she never, ever quits. That is the Hillary I know.”

The people who hung on very word of Bernie's, until he endorsed her, mentioning things such as:

"Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income to the top one percent. Hillary Clinton understands that if someone in America works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty. She believes that we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage. And she wants to create millions of new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. – our roads, bridges, water systems and wastewater plants.

"But her opponent – Donald Trump – well, he has a very different view. He believes that states should have the right to lower the minimum wage or even abolish the concept of the minimum wage altogether. If Donald Trump is elected, we will see no increase in the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour – a starvation wage.

"This election is about which candidate will nominate Supreme Court justices who are prepared to overturn the disastrous Citizens United decision which allows billionaires to buy elections and undermine our democracy; about who will appoint new justices on the Supreme Court who will defend a woman’s right to choose, the rights of the LGBT community, workers’ rights, the needs of minorities and immigrants, and the government’s ability to protect the environment."

Listen to these people you say you admire so much. Listen to them trying to tell you how huge the difference between President Hillary Clinton and President Donald Trump would be.

LISTEN TO THEM!!!!

And then go vote for Hillary.

If I Were Obama, This Is What I'd Say To Bernie

This is what I'd say to Bernie:

"Bernie, pal, look. This is all very clear-cut here. First of all, don't even start with me about you winning the nomination. You lost. The question is what you're going to do now. And what you do now will determine how you're going to be remembered.

"Second: we've already given you a lot at the Convention, and you've responded by punching us in the face. And, you know -- reaching out a friendly hand and getting kicked in the teeth for it tends to tick people off. It's time for you to give. And you know what we want. Get behind Hillary, and you'll be amazed at how quickly we're in a giving mood again.

"You have said that your positions are much closer to Hillary's than to Trump's. But unless I'm mistaken, it's been several months since you've said it publicly. The last time I can remember is the first debate. You said that the differences between you and Hillary, although they were important to you, were tiny not only compared to the differences between you and Trump, but also between you and anyone running for the Republican Presidential nomination.

"Did you actually stop believing that because of a Hollywood fund-raiser? You said that the price of admission to George Clooney's fundraiser was 'obscene.' I don't get that: when rich people like Hollywood superstars or Lehman Brothers give big checks to Democrats, it's obscene, but when some waitress gives you a check for $50 which she might not actually be able to afford, it's democracy.

"If you no longer believe that your positions are much closer to Hillary's than to those of the Republicans, then maybe there's nothing much more for us to talk about. But if you still believe that Hillary and the Democrats are much better than the Republicans, you can get behind us, and campaign hard for Hillary. When your die-hard supporters start booing as soon as you say her name, shout 'em down, tell 'em that all of this talk about her being a monster and a Republican in everything but name is nonsense, point out to them that when it comes to women's health and freedom to choose, green energy, tax breaks for Big Oil, labor unions, whether one fears that the government has too much control over corporations or that corporations have too much control over the government, whether the best way to help all of us is to help the poorest and weakest or the richest and most powerful, whether or not everyone should have access to affordable health care, whether too many tax breaks are available to corporate CEO's making 8 figures a year or more or to teachers and firemen making $50,000 a year or less, whether GLBT's don't have enough rights or whether they have too many, whether or not it's time to revoke the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, whether or not drilling for oil and gas in national parks would be a good idea, and whether or not I'm a secret Kenyan Muslim Communist, there is a difference of night and day between Hillary and Donald, and between Hillary and most Republicans. Point out to them that the one single person who's done more than any other, going back to the early 90's, to get affordable health care to more people, is Hillary Clinton.

"If you fire up your supporters for Hillary, if you campaign hard for her and for down-ticket Democrats, then we're going to have a landslide in November. Not just Hillary winning by a mile, but also Democratic majorities in both houses of Congresses and in the Governors' offices and in mayoral offices and city councils and so on. We might have huge majorities. Imagine all the things a Democratic President could do with a filibuster-proof Democratic Congress backing her up. A Progressive Democratic Congress that keeps pulling her to the Left -- she'll go Left with you, it's not that far from where she was headed anyhow. Education and infrastructure would be restored, we'd convert from oil and coal and gas to solar and wind and geothermal, the air and water would get clean again, wages would go up, regulation would keep Wall Street in line, poverty and homelessness would plummet.

"Bernie, it would be beautiful. And you would be beloved, because everybody would know that you were a huge part of it.

"Or you can keep acting like a spoiled brat who can't admit that he lost, and continue to make everything harder for us, and you'll go down in history as an ultra-Nader. Hillary will still win, but those down-ballot Democratic majorities could vanish. Hillary could be faced with the same obstructionist Republican bullshit I've had to deal with. And people will realize that it was because of you. It'll take some time for some people to see it, the way it took some people some time to figure out what Nader did in 2000, but they'll figure it out. You'll be an ultra-Nader.

"Your power will fade very fast if you don't get with us. It already is fading: a lot of your biggest former backers are already publicly behind Hillary. They didn't wait for you to come to your senses. If you continue to fight her, pretty soon your support will have shrunken down to a hard-core of low-information voters, or non-voters. Haters. Mysogynists. I don't know: maybe those really are your people. Maybe you want to stick with them, and don't want to try to enlighten them about their actual choices in November. Maybe you like having those hard-care crazies and you against the world.

"You're gonna do what you're gonna do. You can be a huge part of a glorious victory, or you can continue to throw a tantrum because you didn't get everything you wanted, and sabotage all of your own causes, which are our causes too. Now get out of my Oval Office, I've got work to do. Decide whether you're my ally or my enemy."

Obama: "I Think Everybody Knows What The Math Is." Oh, If Only!

An ABC News story from yesterday:

As Bernie Sanders pledges to take his presidential campaign all the way to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia this July, President Obama appeared to imply that Sanders' efforts are all but over – even if he won’t explicitly call on Sanders to drop out.

Asked whether he believes the Vermont senator should end his campaign given the current delegate count, he replied, “I think on the Democratic side, just let the process play itself out. You mentioned the delegate math. I think everybody knows what that math is.”

Wow. Wow. No. No, Mr President: unfortunately, lots and lots of people can't do the math at all. How many? Well, how many people still think Bernie has a chance? At least that many people can't do math worth shit. Bernie Sanders says he's very good at math. Rain Man, who could do the math, said he was an excellent driver. Rigorous and accurate self-criticism is not a universally-shared trait. And competence in math is sure as Hell not universally shared. I've been driving myself crazy trying to get people to grasp math as simple as who was ahead in delegates in the Democratic primaries in May 2008, as simple as reading 2 4-digit numbers and realizing which one goes with which candidate and which one is bigger.

Rachel Maddow appears to be better than average, and better than Bernie, at math. As Jason Easley noted on Tuesday,

"The reality is that Hillary Clinton has moved on to general election mode. Bernie Sanders and his supporters are the only people who are contesting the nomination. It isn’t bias driving this perception. It’s math. Rachel Maddow used reality and math to blow up the Sanders logic for a contested Democratic convention."

But the reality is that you can't make people understand math or face reality.

Yesterday Maddow aired an interview with Sanders. At the end of the interview she gave him several chances to say something conciliatory about Hillary, or something to reign in the more venomous attacks of Hillary by his supporters. Sanders repeated several times that he would do everything he can to make sure Trump isn't elected. Obviously, one big thing he could have done to make sure of that was to say that he supports Hillary. But in order for that to have been obvious to him it would have had to have been obvious to him, as it is to me, Barack, Rachel, Hillary, Bill, Jason, Rain Man and other math geeks, that Hillary is the Democratic nominee. The same way that it's obvious to all of us, and not to Bernie, that Trump is toast in November no matter what Bernie does, but that the size of Hillary's win is still very important, and that Bernie can do a lot about that, and that the sooner he starts to try to convince the Hillary-haters among his fans that they shouldn't hate her, the bigger his effect will be. The same way that it's obvious to us that the only thing that Hillary taking $800,000 from Lehman Bros meant was that Lehman Bros had $800,000 less and the Democratic Party had $800,000 more, and that the size of a bank is not the only measure of its behavior. And that Bernie actually belongs to the elite which he seems to loathe so much. And that his confidence about winning the California primary is downright strange for someone who is so far behind Hillary in the California polls...

Ahhh, what else can I say? Go math!

Mr Ex-President Clinton, You Compared The POTUS To WHAT?!

Yr busted, Bill: Mark Halperin and John Heilemann have a new book coming out about the 2012 Presidential campaign, and in it they tell the world that during the campaign you often referred to Barack as "luckier than a dog with two dicks."

A few thoughts, Sir. For one thing, that was skill, not luck. I would've thought a consummately professional politician like you would have less trouble spotting another one. Maybe the way Barack beat Hillary in 2008 just got under your skin and stayed there, I don't know, but it's remarkable the way you seem to underestimate the abilities of our current Commander-in-Chief, who has accomplished quite a lot in the teeth of a stupendous, still-ongoing effort on the part of the GOP to sabotage every thing he does. Barack's lucky they can't shoot straight? It'd be a lot luckier for him if they weren't shooting at him at all, and behaving like normal stupid reactionary partly-civilized Republicans.

Another thing. I know you didn't plan for this remark to go public, but still, are you really the sort of person who should ever compare anyone else to that kind of dog? I love you, Bill, but the jokes are just making themselves. It's hard to imagine how happy Bill Maher and Jay Leno have been made by this. I hope for your sake that you've developed a thick skin about those jokes.

Most of all, though, to me it just seems like a shame. Imagine what the three of you, you, Hillary and Barack, could accomplish if all three of you LIKED each other! Look how much you and Barack have done while not liking each other very much at all. I just don't get it, it just seems to me that the two of you were made to be pulling the same way on the same rope all the time. Maybe that just shows that I don't know a thing about how politics works up there at your level. Maybe it's sort of like how a football team can't have two quarterbacks on the field at once, or something like that.

Or maybe I'm completely right and it's nothing but a damn shame and a waste that the three of you -- or maybe I should say the four of you, because who knows how much of a politician Michelle is going to turn out to be? -- don't all get along.

Hi-Ho, Mr Rove! Rrrring the Bells!

Salon.com reports that Karl Rove has accused President Obama of wanting a civil war within the GOP.

Well clutch my pearls, Karl! A lot of us want to see conflict within the Republican Party! Or to be more precise, we've been seeing it, and loving it. We would like very much for the GOP to destroy itself, leading to decades of Democratic domination of the US, or even better, competition between Democrats and some party like the Greens for control, with the Republicans as dead as the Federalists. Yeah, that'd be great, thank you very much, Mr Rove! That'd be extra-swell! The President, naturally, because he is the President, must be discreet about wanting to see the GOP terminally implode, just as he must be discreet about so many other things. But us little people? We've formed into circles, Karl, and joined our little hands, and in our squeaky little voices we're singing:

Ding-dong, the witch is dead
Which old witch? The wicked witch!
Ding-dong, the wicked witch is deeeeeeaaaaaaaad!

Hey There, Paul Krugman!

You didn't endorse Obama, didn't campaign for him, criticized him during the campaign with no apparent thought at all about whether the criticism came at politically inopportune moments, and the only Presidential administration you have worked for was Reagan's, that's right, REAGAN'S!

And now that Obama has managed to get re-elected by a wide margin even without you getting your hands dirty by helping him, you've got some advice for him.

Well I've got some advice for you too: sit back, relax, enjoy a nice steaming-hot mug of STFU and stop constantly stepping on the dicks of the political pros as they try to actually accomplish something. Because that's what politics is about, it's the part you never could handle, never wanted to have anything to do with: accomplishing things, doing what is possible, dealing with what is rather than lecturing the world about what should be. The latter is your job. Just please don't confuse it with politics. And please stop telling Obama what will and won't work politically. It's like a man blind from birth grabbing Picasso's brush arm as he tries to paint and lecturing him about art. Obama knows what he's doing, and it's difficult enough as it is. With "advisors" like you, he really doesn't need saboteurs. Please, Paul, at long last, take your appropriate place in politics: work for the Green party. Be Ralph Nader's successor, the Great Stupid Third-Party Hope. Unless and until the US gets proportional representation. Then working for the Greens won't be silly and useless at all anymore, and you'll have to find something else to do, something appropriate to your talents, as they say.

2012 Presidential Election Forecast

It's much the same as 4 years ago: I'm not worried, and I'm wondering why so many of my fellow Democrats, and others horrified by Republicans, and ex-Republicans, and so forth, are so worried. I don't think this is going to be close. A lot of people seemed to be really worried in 2008 that McCain-Palin could win. I told them they were being ridiculous, and of course I was right.

Maybe Barackwon't get as many electoral votes in 2012 as he got in 2008 -- maybe -- he got 365 by the way, a little more than twice as many as McCain -- but I'm studying the polls, and I can't see how his chances of carrying every single state he carried in 2008 are any slimmer than Mitt's chances of getting 270.

Could this simply be an example of my autism allowing me to do the math much more easily and correctly than most people? I don't like math, and I can't do it as well as Rain Man or that nice young British man Steve Kroft interviewed on "60 Minutes" who's both an Asperger and a real big deal in the world of math, who has memorized pi to a very unusual number of digits and associates numbers with colors, and on the show he was obviously -- obviously to me -- made very uncomfortable by the surf crashing onto a seawall where Kroft wanted to stop and interview him, although Kroft seemed completely clueless about what it could possibly be which was bothering the young fellow, sorry I can't track down his name -- but I can easily handle the math involved in Presidential elections, without a calculator. Obama has at least 240 electoral votes locked up. At least. That's being very kind to Romney, and saying for the sake of argument that Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida are all toss-ups. That makes 107 tossup electoral votes, of which Obama needs 30 to be re-elected, and Romney needs 79 to beat him.

Which means Romney won't beat Obama. Okay, fine, be worried. Whatever. I'm right.

And things keep getting worse for the Republicans. They are splitting into two parties, the Tea Party whackos and the regular Republicans, many of whom like Obama better than they like the Tea Party. There are growing cracks in the usual disciplined Republican unity. The fury directed from the Right toward Chief Justice Roberts is just the latest of many such stories this year. Usually it's the Democrats in disarray in election season, savagely attacking each other while the Republicans come together and put aside their squabbles until after November. Other way around this time. Sure, there are the usual Democratic or ex-Democratic or otherwise Leftist nincompoops claiming they were deceived and that now they see that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, because their disappointment over one issue has rendered them blind to all of the obvious things in the rest of the world -- but there is no Ralph Nader gathering them together and leading them this time. No King of the Leftist Nincompoops in 2012, as far as the eye can see. No significant third-party madness on the Left, no serious Democratic competing with the POTUS for the nomination.

And on the Right, even if Paul and Santorum and Gingrich and Bachmann and Pawlenty and Huntsman and Perry don't run on any third party tickets they're still all going to get significant numbers of write-in votes from wingnuts who hate Romney, except of course in the case of Huntsman who will get significant numbers of protest votes from moderate Republicans who hate Romney. They're going to get together in Tampa and nominate somebody everybody hates! Romney's a poster boy for party dysfunction.

And the Libertarian party is running a former Governor of New Mexico. In short: there is great disarray on the Right, even if you don't hear much about it, or about other very significant things like how severely and obviously skewed the polls from Rasmussen and others are, from the big media outlets.

Don't worry. Obama 2012. Take it to the bank. If you want to worry about something, worry about why the broadcast networks and CNN keep trying to present this as a close race. If they're really that dumb then that's something to worry about. If they're not that dumb then they're fundamentally dishonest, another thing worth worrying about.

"Betrachte die Herde, die an dir vorüberweidet[...]"

Herd behavior: people tend to believe all of the official stories about Roswell, the JFK assassination or 9/11, or to disbelieve all of them. Actual independent thought, it seems to me, would have produced more people entertaining conspiracy cases involving the Federal government in some of these cases, and not in others. But the great majority of people, seeing Federal conspiracies either in all of these cases and in other cases, or in none of them, seem to be choosing sides and following party lines more than thinking.

In politics, similarly, people tend to think that their side can do no wrong and that the other side are horrible people. This applies to independents too, from whom one might expect more nuanced thought. Instead, one encounters the stereotype of the independent as the lone voice of reason, with fanatical ideologues both to his left and to his right.

Even more so with agnostics and Buddhists under their simpleminded banner; "Everybody Else is Wrong." Recently I read an article, written by a Buddhist, under the title "Is Buddhism Agnostic?" I thought about that for a while and had to conclude that, yes, it is, and that that's why I dislike it so much. Like agnosticism, Buddhism is primarily concerned with smugly pointing out the misconceptions of others. What do they themselves believe? Weeeeelllll... certainly not what is usually said that they believe. And straight back to the everybody-else-is-wrong hobbyhorse.

Human minds are so complex. Almost everybody is actually right about a great deal. Even, say I through clenched teeth, those damned agnostics and Buddhists. Even when they're following a herd and so are only right by default. You may know someone for decades and never once see them make sense, but don't assume because of that you know everything about what they know.

Christopher Hitchens was a dingbat, but he was undeniably and admirably his own dingbat, clearly thinking for himself. (Did anyone else on Earth both support W's Iraq war and campaign for Ralph Nader in 2004? If so I'll give you good odds that they were just following Hitch.)

Anyway: follow me and help re-elect President Obama.

My Indoctrinations in Myth

I suppose the first myths to which I was exposed must have been the Christianones my family heard and read about every week at Sunday school and church services, and occasionally on a Wednesday as well, and sometimes on still other days of the week, for example during Holy Week, from Palm Sunday to Easter, the myths of God and Jesus and Satan, of angels and Adam and Eve and Noah and Abraham and Isaac and Moses. I believed what I heard in church for a while, and as far as I can tell, my mother and father still do. Our church's version of things was correct, of course, and so I started to notice early that there were other Christians who were getting a lot of things wrong. For example, they referred to the fruit which Eve ate in the Garden of Eden at Satan's urging, the one that got her and Adam banished from Paradise, as an apple. Clearly, though, the Bible did not specify what type of fruit it was. In our church we knew nobody knew what kind of fruit it was. We speculated that it might have been a pomegranate.

More serious than this, but symptomatic of the same sort of error, the same inattention to the Bible, which was not unambiguous about these and many other matters, was that fact that many Christians served in the military. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Jesus clearly taught that Christians were supposed to be pacifists. The men in our church were conscientious objectors. One of my uncles, one of my Dad's brothers, had broken with the family and with the church and joined the Navy. We were all quite shocked by this. We still loved him, of course, but what he had done was very strange. We seldom saw him any more; we were in the Midwest and after his Navy hitch he had settled in California.

But it wasn't only people outside of our denomination who didn't seem to always be paying attention. I remember once there was a business meeting of the church, all and sundry welcome to attend, where the issue of buying a new organ was debated. The earnest little pain in the ass that I was, I stood up in this meeting and angrily lectured everybody for even considering such a thing, because in the Bible Jesus clearly said to give everything to the poor and follow him, and last I checked there were still poor people in the world. Quite an angry ten-year-old, I was that afternoon. Nobody contradicted me at the business meeting. But they still bought that new organ.

As a child the only mythologies to which I was exposed in-depth were Christianty and the American mythology which featured tales such as overcoming the dangers of Indiansand the treacherous English,of George Washingtonchopping down that cherry tree, for some reason, and then refusing to lie about it, and then, for some reason, throwing a dollar across the Potomac River. When I was eight or ten my family went to Washington, DC and environs for vacation, and we saw the spot where George, as a teenager or very young man, had allegedly thrown that dollar. The river looked very wide at that spot to me. Too wide by far, in my young judgement, for anybody to have thrown a coin across it. I think it was there and then, on the bank of the Potomac, that I began to wonder if I had been lied to about certain events in our nation's history.

I wasn't reading ancient Latin and Greek as a first grader like Steven Runciamn.However, about the time I started kindergarten or a little before, I was a faithful watcher of a TV show about Hercules. I remember very little about the show: Hercules was a big muscleman who vanquished all and sundry, and if I remember correctly, part of the theme song went something like this: "Hercules!/DadadaDaaa-da-da-da, Hercules!/With the strength of ten/Ordinary men/Hercules!" For many years after that, as I began hear and there to learn little snippets of Graeco-Roman pagan mythology, Hercules remained the character on the TV show who ten times as strong as normal, and I was quite surprised to learn of his connections with Zeus/Jupiter and the Oracle of Delphi and that whole bunch.

My interest in Classical literature didn't become very pronounced until after I was full-grown. In my early adolescence, after I had stopped believing in Christianity, the closest thing I had to a religion was rock 'n roll, as expounded bu such rock 'n roll theologians as Dave Marsh, Greil Marcusand Robert Christgau.It was very important to refer to it as "rock 'n roll" and not "rock," which might refer to this or that wimpy heresy. In retrospect it all seems very silly and embarrassing. Especially Marsh. Bruce Springsteen definitely replaced Jesus in my mind for a while. Not only did I buy Springsteen's records and go to his concerts, I also bought Born to Run: The Bruce Springsteen Story,the biography written by Dave Marsh, and read it very carefully several times. Yes. When I was starting to read Pynchonand Gaddis,I was also reading Marsh.

The interest in Marsh gradually passed, and, to a lesser degree, the interest in Springsteen, as punk rock and new wave became more interesting. My interest in Bob Dylan, with quasi-religious beliefs in the revelatory qualities of his work, was more tenacious. There was a biography of Bobas there had been a biography of Bruce.

The aforementioned growing interest in Classical mythology is not of a part with these other interests of mine, in that I do not believe in the Olympians. Never have I thought that Hermes or Athena was going to solve some problem for me.

I cannot claim that my political interests have remained equally free of such superstition. For some reason, before he took office as POTUS I thought Barack Obamawas a reforming firebrand who was going to be as forceful in his us of the Presidential office as Theodore Rooseveltor his cousin Franklin Delano,and not the cautious centrist he clearly is. (Not that I'm one of the those leftists who regrets voting for Obama, who wishes he had instead wasted his vote on someone like Nader and helped the Republicans stay in power. What are those guys thinking? Anyhoo --)

Come to think of it, my image of the Roosevelts may also be significantly colored by the same Messianic longing.

The literal belief in salvation through Jesus Christ vanished from my mind long before I was full-grown, but it seems that mental habits associated with that belief, learned along with that belief, have persisted, and continued to cloud my perception of reality. What were Bob Dylan and Woody Guthrie really talking about in that NYC hospital room, shortly before Woody died and Bob got his first record contract? Was it all business and image? Was "Dylan" Woody's idea? Was that Newsweek cover story about Bruce in the fall of '75 right all along? Was FDR's wheelchair a prop? Did Teddy intentionally throw the Presidency to Wilson? Did Hercules have pec implants? Did Hermes take the subway like that woman who cheated in the Boston Marathon? Am I nothing but one continual lifelong chump?