The Teflon President

Ronald Reagan has become a hero.  Nowadays, even some Democrats praise him.  During his tenure in the White House, however, this was not the case. It is easy to forget how regularly he was castigated for his purported incompetence.  

To begin with he was an actor.  His chief skill was allegedly pretending to be what he was not.  Furthermore, as an actor, he did not write his own lines. People who had more smarts supplied the words.  His knack was delivering them with conviction.

Then too he was lazy.  He habitually got to the oval office late and left early.  Since he did not know what he was doing, he delegated important decisions to those who did.  He was a figurehead; not a hard worker or deep thinker.

And those crazy ideas of his; there were so many.  Voodoo economics, for instance.  Instead of paying the nation’s bills, he wanted to cut taxes.  He also thought the federal government was too big.  He, with a straight face, described this as a grave problem.

On the international scene, he was similarly unhinged.  Instead of getting along with the Soviets, he wanted to confront them.  He even proposed a mad scheme for anti-missile defense.  Everyone knew this was unworkable and yet he persisted. 

To cap things off, he told the Russians they must tear down the Berlin wall.  Why was he baiting the bear?  The Cold War was never going to end so why couldn’t he admit as much.  International confrontations were a dead end.  Besides, they were dangerous.

Despite this negative drumbeat, the American public gradually warmed to Reagan. He was genial.  He was even funny.  When a would-be assassin shot him, they sympathized with him.  When the economy began to heat up, they applauded this achievement.

From the media, however, there were only sour grapes.  He was dubbed the Teflon president.  Why?  Because none of the calumny hurled at him stuck.  Not even the Iran-Contra debacle soiled his reputation.  Too many of his initiatives worked out, irrespective of the criticism.

Fast forward to today.  Donald Trump is anything but a Teflon president.  Almost everything sticks to him.  Has he been called a racist?  Of course he has.  But upon what basis is this charge made?  Apparently he said some unpleasant things about Hispanic immigrants.  Surely this was based on biology.

No wait.  Aren’t millions of people fleeing from Central America because places like Honduras have become crime-infested hellholes?  These respectable people simply seek protection.  But please explain to me why only the good folks make the trip north. Don’t the bad ones join the caravans?

Then, when they get to the United States, babies are ripped from their mother’s arms.  No wait. There has not been a single documented case of literal ripping.  But why would this prevent opposition politicians from repeating a defamatory meme ad nauseum?

Then there was the Charlottesville business.  The president opined that there were good people on both sides of the Confederate statue controversy.  Did he, in this, mean to praise the KKK?  Although he denied it, his motives were obvious.  After all, anything said in favor of white southerners had to be racist.

The point is that the bias against Trump is so pervasive that anything he says or does is liable to be misconstrued.  Reagan survived an unremitting onslaught of negative evaluations because he was amiable.  He was a nice guy.  In addition, most of his programs prospered.

Trump, on the other hand, is not so nice.  He fights back.  Where Reagan answered his detractors with a smile and a joke, Trump answers his with a barb and a counter-accusation.  We are told that Trump’s language is offensive, but that of his enemies is plainly more so.  He gets the blame because his approach is regarded as unpresidential.

Where is this headed?  Reagan never got a particularly good press when in office.  The end of the Cold War, however, was so spectacular that in retrospect it could not be denied.  Trump, in contrast, is unlikely to be as victorious.  He may therefore be destined for a longer exile in media purgatory.

Does this matter?  I think not. The neo-Marxist bent of many journalists is a fact of modern history.  It will not change.  What counts for more is whether we, as a nation, overcome our infatuation with socialism.  If we do, Trump’s capitalist successes will speak for themselves.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Cooperation versus Competition

There can be no doubt that socialism has increased in popularity in the United States.  The young, in particular, have embraced it as a panacea.  Despite the fact that this political and economic arrangement has never worked anywhere it was tried, they regard it as a cure-all.

The question is why?  What is there about this system that makes it so attractive?  One of the explanations is the raft of free stuff promised to accompany it.  Complimentary health care and college tuition sound good to folks who do not have much money.

Another reason is so-called social justice.  A society in which everyone is theoretically equal is appealing to those who have little power.  Because the young are just starting out, they are at the bottom of the social pecking order and therefore welcome a quick upward ride.

But there is a third reason—an older reason—why socialism is thought desirable.  This goes back to the idea that if society became one huge loving family, we would assist, rather than hurt, each other.  We would unquestionably cooperate such that everyone benefited.

Socialism rose to prominence as a counterweight to capitalism.  With the advent of industrialization, the free market permitted a relatively small number of individuals to accumulate what seemed like an absurdly large share of the community’s wealth.  Worse still was the accompanying concentration of social power.

Since capitalists attributed their success to an ability to outcompete others, competition became suspect.  It was obviously based on a selfish desire to oppress the less greedy. Cooperation made more sense in that it asked everyone to work together for their mutual advantage.

It seemed obvious that if instead of trying to outdo one another, individuals funneled their energies into collaboration more could be accomplished. In addition, people would not need to be defensive, which would free them to participate in intricate projects. 

Furthermore, because they were less selfish, they would distribute the products of their work equitably.  No longer could anyone become obscenely wealthy or nauseatingly poor. All would live comfortably, without envy disrupting the community’s tranquility.

Except that this is not how things worked out.  Cooperation between millions of unrelated individuals does not arise spontaneously.  It has to be coordinated, which means that some people, i.e. leaders, acquire greater power.  Nor does selfishness disappear merely because it is defined as immoral.

Paradoxically, the abolition of competition has negative consequences. Less gets done.  When individuals contend for precedence, they accomplish more.  They work harder and smarter and hence produce surplus goods and services.

What is more, given that we are a hierarchical species, the impulse to be better than others is impossible to eradicate.  Our desire to win is so deeply ingrained that trying to eliminate it is even more problematic than inculcating universal magnanimity.

The good news, however, is that cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive.  Indeed, they can be complimentary.  We see this in athletic activities.  It is part of what makes these events so attractive.

Consider football.  How could a team be successful if the linemen and running backs did not cooperate?  If the tackles did not open a hole for the fullback, where would the latter find the space to spurt ahead?  We call this teamwork and every NFL coach stresses it.

On the other hand, if players did not strenuously compete against their opponents, victory would never be achieved.  If they did not put in the effort to beat their rivals, they would constantly be defeated.  Wanting to win—strongly wanting to win—is essential to doing so.

The critical mistake of socialists is assuming that cooperation and competition are either/or strategies.  In fact, both approaches are essential for our wellbeing.  Emphasizing cooperation at the complete expense of competition therefore does great harm.  It robs us of synergies not otherwise available.

Human societies are complicated.  Lots of contradictory things happen simultaneously.  Consequently, when we over-simplify matters by supposing there is only one way to interact, we gum up the works.  Rather than promote happiness, we introduce unforeseen difficulties.  

Socialism sounds good during stump speeches.  Nonetheless, it concerns fictional characters, not flesh and blood humans.  Real people want to be winners.  They fight hard to come out on top.  They cannot be deterred from competing—even while they promote cooperation. 

Look at the resist Trumpers.  Aren’t they doing the opposite of what they recommend?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University  

Assessing the Reality of American Medicine

During the recent political campaign, the Democrats concentrated on the alleged problems of American medicine.  Despite the embarrassing failures associated with ObamaCare, they proposed a federal takeover of the entire medical system.

Was this because our medical care is in dire trouble?  Are we dying like flies because it is ill managed or bankrupted thanks to its unrestricted costs?  Why did so many voters say that their number one political concern was health care?  Was there a valid reason for their apprehensions?

In recent months, I have had intimate interactions with a number of medical facilities.  This has enabled me to assess their quality first hand.  Despite of all the negativity in the press, I am pleased to report that accounts of their medical malfunctions have been greatly exaggerated.

First of all, the equipment available in our hospitals and clinics is outstanding.  It is cutting edge and constantly being upgraded as innovations are introduced.  Up and down the line, for almost every ailment, this makes improved treatments accessible to most patients.

Next, our medical personnel are top-notch.  They are well trained and for the most part dedicated to doing their best.  The nurses could scarcely be more congenial, the technicians more assiduous, and the physicians more steadfast in their efforts.  

These are good, intelligent, and committed human beings.  They know that what they are doing concerns life and death and therefore they seldom slack off because the work is hard or the results can be disappointing.  There may be exceptions, but few of these professionals and semi-professionals are slap-dash in their exertions.

Nor are patients treated disparagingly because of their status.  I witnessed consistently respectful conduct notwithstanding social class differences.  The poor were not written off because they are poor.  They were not shunted off into back rooms where they were allowed to wallow in misery.

Of course, mistakes are made.  My wife studies medial error so I have heard untold stories of tragedy. Nonetheless, I have also talked to doctors and nurses who told me they have nightmares about giving the wrong medication.  These are responsible people who endeavor not to do harm.

Then there is the issue of cost.  In my case, insurance handled most of the expenses.  In the case of my wife’s parents, Medicare has done likewise. No doubt there are exceptions. Top quality care is expensive and therefore some people must fall through the cracks.

But is there widespread suffering because people are being bled dry and/or denied the appropriate attention?  If so, I didn’t see it.  This, to be sure, is Atlanta.  Somewhere there must be backwaters where high quality interventions have not penetrated. Yet does this mean they never will?

Which brings us back to our political concerns about medicine.  The irony is that Democrats are exploiting these. Given the recent boondoggles surrounding ObamaCare, this should have been impossible.  Soaring costs, lost doctors, and broken promises ought to have made this issue toxic for them.

Nonetheless, liberals, who were answerable for the dramatic increases in insurance rates, still promised reduced outlays.  They were even able to make a total federal takeover of the medical system sound attractive, although a smaller takeover turned into a fiasco.

Democratic candidates also claimed that Republicans wanted to eliminate protections for those with pre-existing conditions.  This charge was blatantly dishonest, but it resonated.  What persuaded so many voters to take obvious canards seriously?  Weren’t they listening?

The culprit, in my opinion, is elevated expectations.  Modern medicine has done so well that we expect it to cure all of our ills.  When we get sick, we anticipate getting better almost immediately.  We also require this to be cheap.  How could it be otherwise in the richest nation in the world?

And so we accept promises of panaceas.  Told about the wonderful free care available overseas, we demand the same. It doesn’t matter that the quality of foreign interventions does not match ours.  It is irrelevant that in places like Russia life expectancy decreased, whereas ours increased.

Wanting more and better is part of the human condition.  Even so, making major changes without investigating whether these will be genuine improvements is seldom wise.  If we exchange something that is very good for something that merely sounds good, it is our health that will suffer.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University  

Demagoguery on Autopilot

When we think of demagoguery, we usually contemplate individuals such as George Wallace.  We picture him standing in the doorway of the University of Alabama trying to prevent black students from registering.  He was the epitome of a racist politician appealing to the prejudices of his constituents in order to obtain power.

Most of the time, we also imagine demagogues to be right-wing rabble-rousers.  In fact, they are well represented on the left.  The career of Huey Long demonstrates this point.  During the Great Depression this tub-thumper rivaled Franklin Roosevelt in popularity by promising that his brand of socialism would make every man a king.

Nowadays demagoguery is widely dispersed and more prevalent on the left. The Democratic Party is currently steeped in a culture of virulent intolerance.  Its leaders and supporters routinely agitate against their opponents in vile and small-minded terms.

Moreover, this political bigotry is on autopilot.  Whenever an opportunity arises, they attack their foes in a predictably nasty manner.  They don’t have to think about the nature of these assaults.  Their content and targets are so stereotyped that they stream forth by rote.

The chief recipient of this abuse is, of course, Donald Trump.  He is so hated that whatever he does provides an excuse for a torrent of foul insults.  Even before he was elected, he was regarded as an incarnation of the devil and thus deserving of contempt.

We must not forget, however, that Trump’s supporters have been tarred with the same brush.  If he is accused of being a racist, so are they.  These uninformed ignoramuses are obviously as “deplorable” as he and therefore as worthy of social ostracism.

The most recent examples of this tendency to slur conservatives stem from acts of public violence.  After pipe bombs were mailed to a dozen liberal icons and mass murder was committed in a Jewish synagogue, the president and his followers were accused of instigating this mayhem.

Liberal agitators did not even wait for the dust to settle.  Their slanderous allegations made it into the public arena even before it was known who committed these heinous acts.  Although no one knew what motivated the terror, it was assumed that the president’s conduct was at fault.

To Illustrate, Steny Hoyer, the Democratic Whip in the House of Representatives, within hours of the synagogue attack was condemning Trump for dividing the nation.  The president’s rhetoric supposedly encouraged unhinged fanatics to engage in homicidal behavior.

The irony is that in censuring Trump for being divisive, Hoyer was doing the exactly the same thing.  In placing the blame on those on the right for actions most Americans abhorred, he was dividing the nation into two camps; the liberal good guys and the conservative bad guys.

Moreover, this was a stealth attack.  Hoyer, like many on his side, prefaced his criticism by indicating that all Americans were offended by senseless violence.  He was not going to exacerbate tensions by accusing his political enemies of responsibility for the actions of a deranged few—but then he did.

This technique followed in the time-honored footsteps of Barack Obama. He too would begin a partisan assault by promising that he was not going to say what he subsequently did.  He, for instance, was not going to identify anyone as uncivil, but then he declared that Republicans needed to stop denouncing Democrats.

Moreover, the character of these allegations was foreseeable. Whatever tragedy befell the nation, right-wing racismhad something to do with it. Evidence of this bias did not need to be provided.  Its existence was so often asserted that it required no further proof.

Likewise, if women were involved in a scandal, conservative sexismmust be to blame.  Everyone knew right-wingers were male chauvinists.  Their gender prejudice was so deeply ingrained that they must be closet rapists.  Liberals, on the other hand, were innocents.  They protected women even as the groped them.

This reflexive prejudice against conservatives is intended to rile up the liberal base.  In the present context, it is meant to get people so angry that they go to the polls to support Democratic candidates.  Voters are not supposed to think about the issues or aspirants, but to vote their hatreds.

Will this tactic work?  Accusing Republicans of being racists and sexists has had the anticipated effect for decades.  Will our current hyper-partisanship once again allow inflamed passions to override facts?  We will soon see.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Learning to Live with Evill

When Franklin Roosevelt was asked how he could do business with such a brutal dictator as Nicaragua’s Anastasio Somoza, he replied “He may be an S.O.B., but he’s our S.O.B.”  FDR was a realist.  He knew that it was better to have an imperfect ally than a dedicated enemy.

Nowadays many Americans expect the world to reflect their ideals. If it does not, they throw up their hands in horror and vow to have nothing to do with folks who offend them. They retreat, not into an improved situation, but moral isolationism.  

We see this approach in the reaction to the vicious slaughter of Jamal Khashoggi.  Although we do not yet know the details of who ordered what, we can be certain that this what a political hit job.  In one way or another, the ruling class of Saudi Arabia was involved.

The immediate response in some quarters was that we must cut off all business with the desert kingdom.  These are not our kind of people and therefore we should not sell them armaments or work with them against Iran.  Unless they instantaneously renounce the heir apparent to their throne, they have to be treated as pariahs.

Had we taken this approach with Somoza, the turmoil south of our border would have been worse.  Had we adopted a similar position during World War II, we would not have cooperated with Joseph Stalin in defeat the Nazis.  These “friends” were not friends, but the lesser of evils.

The fact is that terrible behavior is omnipresent.  It is everywhere and always.  While we should strive to reduce it if we can, we must sometimes find ways to coexist with it.  The Saudis are not like us and will not be so for the foreseeable future; nevertheless we must make the best bargain with them that we can.

The same goes for villains like Cesar Sayoc and Robert Bowers.  This does not mean we should condone their actions. Pipe bombs and mass shootings are never acceptable.  Nor should we refrain from protecting ourselves from fiends when a means of doing so is at hand. 

Nonetheless, we must understand that other madmen and other anti-Semites await.  We will never fully eradicate the monsters from our midst.  Although we have to do what we can to suppress the damage they do, but we should not drastically change who we are lest we injure ourselves.

In the case of the Saudis, we will not convert this medieval kingdom into a democratic bastion during our lifetime.  Cultural change occurs too slowly for that to happen.   Instead, we must tolerate some of what we abhor in order to safeguard what we treasure.  We must occasionally hold our noses and cooperate with those who can help us.

In the case of the mad bomber Sayoc, we need to accept the reality of madness.  Not all crazy people can be cured by modern medicine.  Using their despicable deeds as an excuse for bashing our political opponents helps no one.  It merely creates another problem by polluting civil discourse.

As for Bowers, some folks will always try to solve their personal problems by scapegoating others.  Turning our nation into an armed camp in order to preclude their depredations imprisons us rather than controls them.  Whatever measures we take to stay safe, they are bound to find ways around them.

Life takes courage.  We cannot banish everything that frightens us.  However much energy we put into blocking that which might injure us, it is never enough to thwart the unanticipated or the inexorable.  Sometimes bad things must be tolerated even though they are intolerable.

Nowadays the young clamor for safe zones in which they will never be offended by micro-aggressions.  What then are they to do about macro-aggressions?  The latter are sure to happen, ergo closing our eyes or stopping up our ears will not preclude harm.

The answer—the only answer—is to gird our loins and accept the reality of evil.  Paradoxically, we must also accept that when things go wrong, some people will propose correctives that make things worse.  They will be so terrified that they do not think through the consequences of their proposals.

The point is that we must keep level heads even when we are tempted to run and hide.  If we understand that evil is a part of life, we can minimize its destructiveness. Otherwise our fears will produce more of what we dread.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Theory versus Practice

We never resolved our disagreement.  Throughout my childhood, my father and I argued about which was more important: theory or practice.  He was on the side of practice, whereas I, by default, was on that of theory.

Although my father was extremely intelligent, he was dyslexic. This meant that he avoided the written word.  Despite this limitation, he became a self-taught electronic engineer who was skilled enough to troubleshoot the radar systems of cutting edge fighter jets.

His difficulty with reading did not manifest itself until after transistors took over from vacuum tubes.  This development made it difficult for him to decipher theoretical innovations.  Hitherto, he was able to learn all he needed from direct experience.  What worked, as opposed to what didn’t, was usually enough to figure things out.

I, on the other hand, was good at school.  My reading comprehension was such that I got high grades.  This aroused my father’s envy; nevertheless he dismissed my academic achievements as ungrounded.  My “facts” were not based on reality and therefore were no match for experience-based common sense.

College professors were a focus of my father’s ire.  He would frequently scorn them as living in an ivory tower.  Although they might have big brains, because they were removed from day-to-day actualities, they frequently came to ridiculous conclusions.

Today, after three decades of functioning as a professor, I am painfully aware that many of my colleagues are indeed remarkably impractical. Anyone who has participated in academic politics quickly learns foolish proposals abound.  Possession of a Ph.D. is plainly no guarantee of good judgment.

As a consequence, I have come to the conclusion that both theory and practice have significant limitations.  Each needs to supplement the other, whereas when artificially separated, they have substantial drawbacks.  Practicality, unguided by theory can, for instance, be ineffectual in unfamiliar territory.  While it might enable a person to repair electronic equipment, it is not of much assistance in inventing integrated circuits.

Meanwhile, theory, when it is detached from reality, can pursue fantasies. Instead of producing useful results, it often prompts people to engage in idealistic carnage.  Marxism is a prime example.  In quest of fictitious social justice, it has brutally slain over a hundred million souls.

Which brings us to the contemporary political scene.  Donald Trump is the apotheosis of practice.  As a successful businessman, his goal was, and is, to make things work.  Pragmatic problem-solving, not conceptual hypothesizing is his forte.  More interested in the application than the history of capitalism, he promotes job formation not intellectual explanations.

This has the downside of making it difficult to formulate long-term political aspirations.  Focused as he is on the here and now, it is difficult for him to inspire visions of a better world.  As a result, he moves from one tangible challenge to the next.

As for liberals, they wallow in disconnected theory.  Always prepared to make big promises, these assurances are habitually based on a fervent allegiance to socialism.  The notion of a world in which everyone is totally equal, as opposed to evidence that this state is possible, is their loadstone.

Unfortunately collectivism has been disconfirmed thousands of times over. Nonetheless, progressives refuse to notice.  Thus, when one of their programs fails, they simply move on to the next imaginary victory. This succeeding project will surely achieve what the prior daydream did not.

ObamaCare illustrates this propensity.  Hence, when this government intrusion into the health care system did not provide the promised benefits, it proponents would not admit their error. To the contrary, they doubled down and demanded a total federal takeover of medical care.

This same heedlessness of reality infects liberal foreign policy. Being nice to the Iranians was supposed to reduce international tensions, yet when it did not, they declined to acknowledge that the deal they made with the mullahs might be defective. In this case too, they insisted they had always been right.

We are about to find out if the American people are as dedicated to Marxist theory as liberals.  Will they vote for the blandishments of mendacious left-wing politicians or reward the economic successes of a practice oriented, albeit inarticulate, president?

While it would be nice if Donald Trump could convey coherent ideals, he has delivered on promises to fix identifiable dilemmas.  Would replacing him with left-leaning zealots be an improvement?  Would their fictions prove more satisfying than low unemployment or tangible diplomatic victories?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

The Half-Smart Among Us

Many years ago, when I was a college undergraduate, one of our economic professors testified before congress.  When he returned, he reported that much to his surprise not all of the legislators were equally smart.  Some manifestly asked more penetrating questions than others.

Anyone who watched the Kanavaugh hearings on television will not be surprised by this observation.  The intellectual disparity between an Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker was striking. One was probing in her queries, whereas the other merely struck pompous poses.

Once upon a time, I thought that people could not reach positions of power unless they were unusually gifted.  Since then I have learned that it is often sufficient to be half-smart. Indeed, a lot of apparently intelligent folks fall into this category.

But what does that mean?  Who is genuinely smart and who isn’t?  In fact, I have sometimes wondered about the adequacy my own mental equipment. Although I did well in school and IQ tests, there were many things I did not understand.  How was this possible if I were truly intelligent?

Where I fit in the intellectual scheme of things only gradually, and unexpectedly, became clear.  It emerged from the way in which unknown others reacted to me.  An unanticipated disparity appeared during our interactions that shed light on the nature of brainpower.

Much to my astonishment, very intelligent people were more apt to regard me as bright than were less smart individuals.  The former almost always paid attention to what I said, while the latter frequently dismissed me as less astute than themselves.  In other words, the half-bight often thought they were smarter.

Why, I wondered, was this so.  Obviously I did not always say uniquely clever things.  Indeed, I frequently made foolish comments.  So what was it that the very smart noticed, which the less smart did not?  It turned out to be how quick I pick up on meanings.

In conversation, the very bright immediately discerned that I understood what they were saying.  Because my rejoinders were responsive to their intents, they realized that I comprehended what they meant.

The half-smart, however, assumed that if I disagreed with them, I did not understand them.  Because they did not know what they did not know, they assumed that a lack of agreement signified a lack of awareness on my part.  It never occurred to them that I might be cognizant of information they were not.

The half-smart, in short, are not terribly quick on the up-take. They think they are.  They believe they see the whole picture.  Nevertheless, because they do not, they aren’t on the alert for the unforeseen.  Given that the existence of these facts is not suspected, many never reach their consciousness.

Nowadays a great many half-smart politicians, journalists, and entertainers clamor for our attention.  Most of these individuals are liberals who assume they have a monopoly on the truth.  It never dawns on them that there might be entire universes of information of which they are oblivious.

This is not to imply that conservatives are smarter than liberals. Intelligence is almost surely distributed equally along the political spectrum.  The salient difference between the left and the right is that many leftists assume they are smarter.  These liberals are generally convinced that they perceive what conservatives do not thanks to their superior intelligence.

How often have we been told that progressive experts ought to control the government so that they can make decisions ordinary citizens would botch? How frequently do these liberals describe themselves as intellectuals or members of the intelligentsia?

The supreme irony is that many self-important intellects are only half-smart.  They are not independent thinkers, but ideological hangers-on.  Their supposed insights merely repeat slogans handed down from mentors who are regarded as brilliant trailblazers.

Unfortunately most half-smart individuals cannot distinguish genuine understanding from conceptual nonsense.  Because they do not see the complete picture, they cannot recognize when important elements of a political construction are missing.  They hear the socialist promises, for instance, but overlook the socialist failures.

With so many Americans having been educated in liberal doctrine, these folks assume they must be extremely smart or they would not have received good grades in school.  As a result, they regularly foist absurdities upon us that are not exposed until these irrationalities do irreparable damage.

In this political silly-season, a surfeit of unacknowledged half-smartness ensures host of distressing outcomes.  The therefore behooves us to be suspicious of misplaced intellectual confidence.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University