“Linear thinking” used as a slur…

Early in my career, a lawyer and I were driving to a hearing together and had time for some idle chatter.  Not far into the conversation I had the distinct impression I was on the psychoanalyst’s couch.  Critical of my Christian beliefs, she diagnosed me as being a “linear thinker.”  Of course I had no idea what that phrase meant at the time.  She proceeded to evaluate my mental processes as being excessively “black and white.”  In any event, the context of the conversation revealed that she determined my mode of thinking to be defective – a handicap.

It wasn’t until I looked up the term 30 years later that I realized the term “linear thinking” she used was not the term she intended.

Linear thinking is…

a process of thought following known cycles or step-by-step progression where a response to a step must be elicited before another step is taken.

That sounds like a definition of “analysis.”  Ahaa.  She was telling me I was “anal” before the word “anal” came into common usage. 

Seriously, if I knew the definition at that time, I would have taken it as a complement.  But a complement, it was not.  What she meant was that my thinking did not allow for a million shades of gray as any “normally and productively functioning person should think.” 

What I learned during that conversation was she hated religion and the concepts of faith and moral absolutes.  Isn’t that just like an attorney.  To her there were no moral absolutes.  She didn’t grasp the concept of embracing clear principles and values that enable discernment.  She likely considered such “discernment” to be “judgmental”, which of course one should never be.  Wink wink.  She questioned what my “principles” and “values” were based on.  Of course, being naive and not a good debater, I responded “the Bible”.   The trap was sprung.  At which point she chuckled and proceeded to give me a litany of Old Testament scripture – a standard misdirect anyone who loathes Christianity or Judaism will do.  She rattled off several misquoted, out of context, and misinterpreted sections of the Old Testament that discuss mass slaughter.  “Is this what shapes your values?” she quizzed.  Our 10 mile trip was a thousand miles short of a defense on my part.

One interesting twist is that an alternative to “lineal thinking” is “conceptual thinking.”  I would guess, reviewing my blogs over the past four years, I am both.

Unfortunately, the great majority in Congress are attorneys, that breed of human stricken with the same deficiency in “principles” and “values” as my attorney “friend.”  They have little sense of right and wrong, and insist on a million shades of gray to the point where right and wrong do not exist.  That is a definition of “amoral.”  Is it any wonder they are taking us down a dark path and don’t care about the future?

LiveJournal Tags: amorality,right and wrong,Congress,attorneys,linear thinking

Hypocrisy of House Censure Rules

What is the difference between clapping, hissing, cheering, booing, yelling “right on, man” or yelling “liar.” All are disruptive. How many agonizingly long minutes have political speeches been extended because of painfully disruptive applause? Exclaiming “liar” took only about a second. Booing is disrespectful but happens all the time.

The Free Republic.com reports that under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

Fortunately we still have free speech out in the real world. Too bad we don’t have free speech in Congress. Fortunately we can still call a spade a spade, we can still say Muslims are best known today for their terrorism, intolerance and their oppression of women without being censured. We can still speak the truth. We can still call someone a liar if they really are. Too bad Congress can’t do the same.

As an added bonus to this blog entry, I present to you a timely piece from a very wise commentator, Charles Krauthamer he titles: Does He Lie? Enjoy!

If for NO OTHER reason to oppose the bill...

On ABC, Obama was asked by Charlie Gibson:

"Mr. President, will you and your family give up your current health care program and join the new "Universal health Care Program" that the rest of us will be on?"

There was stoney silence, with this expression from this "universal health care proponent"...


A number of senators were asked the same question. Their response: "We'll think about it."

The test that we should hold Congress to on any bill they consider passing: Will you agree to forfeit your perk and be covered by what you approve for the rest of us?

If they waffle or say no, KILL IT. If for no other reason to kill the bill, it is because of the special privledge and hypocracy it perpetuates...reducing the health benefits 70% of us enjoy while maintaining the gold plated benefits of the privledged few.

Why does it take Congress so long to grasp reality?

This article reveals how out of touch Congress and the White House really are. The American people, at least many of us, knew - months ago - we couldn't afford the misdirected and wasteful programs being proposed - even if we thought they were a good idea. Why has it taken so long for Washington to get a clue?

In this case, they are not only being proposed at the wrong time, cap 'n cool and lowest common denominator health care are bad ideas. It's like biting a dog that has rabies. It's not only the wrong time, but also a bad idea.

I Am So Mistaken - Nation of Laws: NOT

Our US Congress' dumbfounding reaction to the FBI's legal search and seizure of evidence from William Jefferson's office reveals a fatal flaw in my previous posts: I'm understanding now that we are not really a nation of laws. I claimed we were. I thought we were. But there is just too much evidence piling up that proves the contrary. My beliefs are based on an out-dated and wishful notion of our country's ethical standards.

The congressional call to return this evidence in the name of "separation of powers", along with the Senate's stupifying amnesty legislation leads me to these conclusions:

• Congress does not give a damn about laws or the enforcement thereof
• They are concerned more about their own welfare
• As an institution, they are self-serving to the detriment of this nation

One of my pet peeves at any level of government is the establishment of laws for appearances sake, to satiate the complainers, with no resources or real intention to enforce the laws. To me, that is not just politics and "political correctness", but simple dishonesty and fraud.

This congressional call to defend their fellow criminal in the name of "separation of powers" reveals to me why these same self-serving SOBs (save our butts) don't care about enforcing our current immigration laws. There is too much in it for them. There's too many corporate contributions to be had. The laws be damned.