The Great Divide

[Subtitled “Cognitive Dissonance Revisited]

I see that another Tumblr blog has cropped up in response to the We Are the 99 Percent site. Created by conservative blogger Erick Erickson, it’s about the 53% who claim to pay the taxes for the 47% who they claim don’t pay any taxes at all. I will not link to it. If you want to find it, have at it.

First of all, we need to put this ridiculous lie to rest. It is a vicious falsehood being promoted by the right in order to portray lower income people as lazy freeloaders. This is nothing new. Those of us of a certain age (ahem) will remember Reagan’s “Welfare Queen” story. Although there will always be people who try to game the system, this was an urban legend based on nothing resembling the truth. So the right is still at it, and some people are still falling for it. The people who pay little to no income tax are still paying taxes: payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes. To paint them as lazy bums contributing nothing to society or to our country is simply wrong. WRONG. If someone says this in my presence, they’re apt to get an earful, because I have had it up to here (motion towards my neck) with this nonsense.

If people don’t pay federal income tax, it’s because they have enough deductions under the federal tax structure to erase any further payments. These include deductions for the elderly and for children. If it’s not because of deductions, it’s because they simply don’t make enough to have to pay federal income tax once they take the standard deductions. Here is the best article I’ve read about the 47 percent.

So now that we’ve put that silliness to bed, what about the 53 percent and their website? Let’s look at a few. (This is where the cognitive dissonance part comes in.)

This person went to public school, then went on to get scholarships and loans for college. They served in the Army, taught college, and went on to law school and opened their own firm. That’s great! Good for you! And you DO realize, don’t you, that taxes paid to the government financed your public school, your loans, and the Army you served in? I’m sure the college where you taught also received money from the government for scholarships and research. I’m guessing at this, but I bet your law firm got plenty of deductions and tax breaks from the government. It sounds like you really made something of yourself and worked hard to get there...but you had plenty of assistance from the federal government.

This person had a mortgage and a “pile of student loans.” A federal tax code deduction and loans provided by the federal government. Again, it sounds like they worked hard to get to the point they’re at. With government help.

This is my favorite. This person goes to a public, in-state university. Federal funds. They got scholarships. Federal funds. They got a good education in high school, quite possibly (although not stated) at a public school. It sounds like they have the right idea about not living beyond their means, but much of the good fortune they’ve had has been because of the federal government.

There are other stories on that site about people’s parents being firefighters (government workers), nurses (working in a place that gets government funds via Medicare), or about people working their way out of welfare. That’s great, it really is. Here’s my question:

If it was okay for you to be on welfare or receive government aid when you needed help, why would you deny it to others?

There is a huge difference in philosophy here, and I really don’t know if it can ever be bridged. They completely misunderstand what the Occupy movement is about, and ignore their own interests in favor of those who are reaping huge profits and providing multi-million dollar bonuses to CEOs...but no matter how many tax breaks they get, they are not creating jobs. Wall Street deregulation, speculation, and unbridled greed led to our economy going into free fall, and they got away with it. They got away with it.

There are tales on the site of people working three jobs, 80+ hours, having to pay hundreds of dollars for health insurance, losing their homes, losing everything...do they not realize that it could and should be better for them, and for all Americans? Who has fostered this slave-like mentality that makes them think that they have to work themselves to death in order to fill the pockets of corporate CEOs? Is that their version of the American dream?

There is nothing wrong with hard work. I think most people (including the Occupiers) are willing to work hard. But when Wall Street screws the economy and people are laid off as a result, the jobs simply are not there. I know plenty of people who have tried their damnedest to find a job (including military personnel) and have sent out thousands of resumes, and the jobs simply are not there. Assailing the protestors as lazy, spoiled, whining, idiotic bums is just mind-boggling to me.

I don’t know if it’s Stockholm Syndrome or what, but they’ve sure fallen for it hook, party line, and sinker.

Deception Perception

I find it interesting to see the different interpretations of various events.

Whether it's the shooting in Tucson, which political party truly cares about the country, whether or not the health care law will help or harm our country, eyewitness accounts of crimes and criminals, or just personal issues, we all have an opinion, and we all have a perception that is influenced by our own biases and prejudices, as well as those of who surround us.

I suppose it's all a fascinating psychological study for anyone who wants to explore it, but that's not my field. I enjoy reading articles about cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and downright delusion, but I'm not qualified to give an authoritative take on it. Just my opinion.

I'm always willing to cut certain people some slack. I know that much depends upon the atmosphere in which you were raised, and I know that parents can be an affirmative or a destructive influence on their kids. I know that it's hard to break away from seeing things a certain way and to question belief systems that are deep and pervasive. I know that kids can be easily manipulated, especially when in an atmosphere of emotional turmoil and blackmail. I also know that as we get older, it's harder to question authority and to question truths that we have been conditioned to believe.

It's much harder for me to forgive young adults or middle-aged people who still have the ability to question and question HARD. Those who shouldn't be so set in their ways that they have become incapable of seeing other points of view, or having any sort of reasonable discussion about issues. Those who are either so blinded by their own hatred or so mentally weak and malleable that they can be easily manipulated by others. It's not unusual to see these types resort to puerile insults and name-calling.

No matter that events are twisted to justify their own misconceptions; no matter that their own actions are ignored or minimized; no matter that despite years of insults and anger, others are still expected to not only jump when demanded to, they are expected to ask, "How high? How much?"

Welcome to Reality™. Words and behaviors have consequences, and treating people badly, with rancor and disdain, will not make them do what you want them to do. Spin it whichever way you want, but such behavior will come back to bite you. You'd think some people would have figured that out by now. Apparently not. Don't come crying to me because you screw yourself over time after time, don't give me a sob story about how everyone hates you and everyone else is horrible, and quit bitching because you backed yourself into a corner that you can't get out of. Your bad behavior and ongoing bitterness are your own problems. Your poor negotiation skills are the result of years of misdirection and mistreatment, and an inability to let go of a grudge.

It's fascinating from a psychological viewpoint. But it's also kind of pathetic. And frankly, quite boring.

Altered reality

I've written before about cognitive dissonance, in which a person experiences conflict due to holding two opposing ideas at the same time, or being presented with incontrovertible evidence that refutes one of their firmly held beliefs. We've been seeing a lot of this lately with climate change deniers, people who oppose health care reform despite the fact that they will directly benefit from it, birther idiots who refuse to believe the evidence of a bona fide birth certificate (perhaps because it is titled certificate of live birth), and various other lies, misconceptions, or even those lovely forwarded emails loaded with bullshit.

Although not quite the same as cognitive dissonance, I would say that delusion is a part of that; people often delude themselves into believing something is real when it can be proven that it most definitely is not. I recently saw someone express extreme displeasure that President Obama had yet to visit the Gulf coast, that people were so angry at President Bush for not visiting during Katrina, but why was no one calling out Obama on this?? (All caps, of course.) Someone else chimed in and said that sure, Democrats and the media think Obama can do no wrong, and then the original poster said that Obama supporters don't want to be confused with the facts because they don't want to believe the evidence against him.

This was posted on May 30. The President had just been to the Gulf on May 28, and was there on May 2. Who is not believing evidence now? Or perhaps they just aren't paying attention, and deluding themselves into their version of reality, because to be presented with evidence that counters their belief will result in cognitive dissonance. I've also seen people write that Obama canceled the national day of prayer (he did not...although I think he should), and I've seen others say that he did not observe Memorial Day or honor our dead soldiers because he was on vacation. He was not at Arlington, but he was at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery to honor the soldiers there. As I pointed out somewhere, are soldiers buried at Arlington somehow more worthy than those buried elsewhere? Because my Dad is buried at Burr Oak Cemetery in northern Indiana, does that mean that he didn't serve his country well, and for many years, and is not as worthy of respect as those buried at Arlington? Anyone who says yes..I'll be showing up at your door soon, and we'll have us a little talk, okay?

I had it happen with that Facebook friend who, when I countered her misleading and incomplete facts with the full story, refused to acknowledge or accept it, and defriended me. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinions but not to his own facts."

It really is an odd thing to see seemingly intelligent people turn their backs on the truth, and even make shit up. Although it’s a little long, here is a very good article about delusional beliefs. One of the worst instances in my experience was with an ex-boss of mine. The guy was a jerk on many levels, and was quickly becoming known among the local research community as untrustworthy and prone to exaggeration of his own abilities. He was getting ready to go on a business trip, so we all had a little meeting about the projects we were going to be working on while he was gone. I was going to be purifying some Bovine Factor V, and it was a very problematic protein to purify. (Maybe because I didn't wear my ppppppledge ppppppin when I was working on it. Ha!) It was decided that we would send the assay out to a lab in Atlanta so that a researcher there could do the assay and give us some insight onto how we could get the process to work better. Because I wanted no misunderstandings, I said, "Just to clarify. I'll be collecting samples and sending them to Atlanta, right? I won't be doing the assay here?" He said, "Right." My manager and a coworker were also there.

Later that week....

I go through the purification process, a matter of several hours of work. As I get down to the purified protein, I start collecting samples to be sent out later, and get them frozen quickly so they don't degrade. The phone rings, and my manager answers it. It's the boss, he's calling in to check on how things are going, and after talking to him for a while, my manager says he wants to talk to me about how my Factor V project is going. I say so far, so good, I'm collecting the samples today, and I should be able to get them out to Atlanta for Dr. Whoever to do that assay. A brief silence.

Him: What?! Why aren't you doing it there? We talked about that before I left!

Me: Yes, but it was agreed that I'd be sending them out, not doing the assay here.

Him: No no no, we said you'd be doing it there!

Me: [trying again, although I knew there would be no winning this one] I specifically asked you to clarify that I would not be doing the assay here, I would only collect the samples and send them to Atlanta, and you said yes, that's right.

Him: I did NOT say that. Let me talk to Joy [the manager] again.

When Joy got off the phone with him, she came over to me and said, "Beth, he's wrong. I stood right there, heard you ask the question, and heard him agree." My other coworker who was there also agreed, said it was clear to her that I would just collect samples and send them out.

So yeah, I ended up doing the fucking assay, and yes, I still find it disturbing that he either lied so blatantly, or managed to convince himself that he had said something other than what he did...despite three other people corroborating that he was wrong and that he was not remembering the meeting correctly.

I find it really unsettling to have to deal with people like that. In fact, you might say that people like that give me cognitive dissonance. They remember events in a way that is simply not true, they change reality to fit their own needs and purposes, and then try to pass their new version of reality off as the truth, even when others produce evidence showing that they are wrong. I'm not sure what the process is there, but they are either maliciously lying or deluding themselves into a false reality. Either way, there is definitely something not altogether right there, with a distance from reality that has to be unhealthy.

One thing I've learned over the years when experiencing something like this, whether at work or in personal matters, is the importance of documentation. When you know that someone willfully and happily lies, it's best to keep a record of contact, things that were said, emails and letters that were sent, and any other pertinent info. When dealing with the deluded, the best policy is an age-old one: Cover Your Ass. And you can tell 'em to kiss it while you're at it.

Timeliness and Denial

I was interested this morning to see a friend post a picture of a Facebook conversation in which someone posted one of those status updates that make the rounds. A brief statement followed by "if you have a whatever who means this to you please repost this as your status" type of update. The thing is, this update left out a lot of important information and was very misleading. Someone addressed this and provided sources to back up their numbers. Well, here...check it out for yourself. This was a great example of people forwarding or passing on misleading information without doing proper research. I saw it all the time during the election, and I Snopesed plenty and sent them right back. We are all misled occasionally (think of the recent rumor that John Roberts was retiring...if only), but to forward these things willy-nilly without bothering to check the veracity is...well, frankly, I think it's dishonest. Or at the very least, lazy.

I saw this early in the morning, and cut off my legs and call me Shorty, if one of my "friends" didn't post that exact bullshit as her status update a little bit later! Seeing as I had some valuable information at my disposal—how serendipitous!—I thought I would share the above picture, so I posted the link in a comment. The comment back from her was about the "useless and excess weaponry" remark. I commented back that that wasn't the pertinent part there (and added an LOL to show that I was not trying to be antagonistic). The next comment from her was a diatribe against welfare recipients, including "generations of sucking off the system, living the American Dream on someone elses labor. Healthcare, foodstamps, housing, kids on free breakfast and lunches, waived school fees...they have better benefits than the working people." Nice. I again pointed out that she was ignoring the pertinent part concerning the large increases in benefits for military personnel and their families that President Obama has called for in his 2011 budget, which is what her original update concerned.

This was again ignored in favor of a couple of more rants about those nasty welfare types. She wrapped it all up neat and tidy with this:

Beth, you and I won't agree on any part of Obama. I think he's a joke and the biggest mistake we've made. My hope through the next three years is that the dumbasses that voted this liberal ass into office go down with him.

For some reason, the entire thread got removed, apparently by Facebook. (Perhaps it was her strong language regarding welfare recipients?) When I tried to leave a further comment on her page, she had unfriended me.

This might come as a surprise to some of you, but I can be one persistent bitch when I want to be, especially when it comes to debate. I will prove my point. So I sent her a message on Facebook, and I think I'll go ahead and include the entire thing here:

I know I'm not going to convince you to not hate Obama; I wasn't even trying. However, I found it interesting that you were unable or unwilling to accept that your original update about the raise military members were getting left out an important part of the equation: the large increases in their benefits that our President built into the 2011 budget.

I defend your right to say whatever you want, but ignoring the facts in order to maintain your worldview doesn't change those facts or the numbers. The original post was misleading and left out important information. I merely supplied that information.

I even defend your right to call me a "dumbass" for voting him into office, along with 69,456,896 of my fellow Americans. However, hoping that all of us will "go down with him" seems more than a little mean-spirited to me, and considering what a large, tax-paying portion of the population we make up, it would probably have a significant impact on our country.

The percentage of our budget spent on military/defense is much larger than that spent on welfare and social programs. That's a fact.

I also find it interesting that you defriended me. Sorry that you can't handle an opposing viewpoint, especially one that was merely trying to tell the truth about a misleading piece of information.

I included a graph of the President's 2011 budget that showed the percentages allotted to various programs and agencies, and told her and her husband to take care.

I'm writing about this because I find it a fascinating phenomenon to see someone completely ignore the facts in order to maintain the status quo in their own mind. When the facts contradict what they have based their reality upon, they simply turn their heads away and use diversion tactics, changing the subject completely. I was also not antagonistic in any way, shape, or form. Although I can be very vocal in my criticism when I write about things here, this is my own forum and my own opinion. If I am debating with someone, I try to stay respectful, and I certainly don't resort to calling them a "dumbass." At least not to their face.

I merely recognized that her status update was incomplete and misleading, and provided information that told the rest of the story. Isn't it fascinating that she didn't want to hear it? I've written about cognitive dissonance before, and it seems to me that this "friend" is suffering from a big ol' stinking pile of cognitive dissonance. I've unfriended people on rare occasion, but only when they've gotten shitty with me, such as flat out saying, "You're wrong." I did nothing like that in this case, and I think it speaks volumes about this person that they simply didn't want to hear the truth. For shame.

Ah well, as another friend pointed out, I've made other, better friends here and on Facebook. Those who think logically, for example, and those who aren't so close-minded and blinded by their hatred of someone that they refuse to see the facts in front of their face. Oh, and those who have compassion for others and realize that just because they've got a nice house and great benefits and a pretty comfortable existence (Did I mention that I met this person on a cruise, and they've gone on at least a dozen of them? Yeah.), it doesn't mean that they can or should forget about those who are less fortunate and can't afford that nice house, or those great benefits, or can't afford to go visit family in another state, let alone go on multiple fucking cruises. To assume that every person who is on welfare is on it because they want to be, or that they are all a bunch of parasitic leeches, is an insult to those who are struggling.

Am I upset about this turn of events? Not in the least. I was disgusted by her refusal to acknowledge the truth, and even more disgusted by the hateful prejudice that she exhibited with her words. I just hope that my words will make her think. But I doubt it.

I'll let you know if I hear back from her...but I doubt that will happen, either.

In this case, I don’t mind being minus one.

Cognitive Dissonance, revisited

Well, that big brouhaha about President Obama's speech to schoolkids turned out to be a big ol' heap o' nothing, didn't it? Laura Bush thought it was a good speech to give to schoolkids; most teachers thought it was an appropriate message; heck, even most of the schoolkids who heard it thought it was a pretty cool speech, and said that it showed them that sometimes you have to try harder, it's okay to ask questions, and that not everyone is immediately successful at achieving their goals. When the President mentioned that Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, I saw one young lady who showed a look of stunned surprise, then smiled to her friend. After the speech, it was neat to see the kids coming up to shake the President's hand, some of them turning to their friends with an "Oh my God!" look. All in all, I'd say it was successful in its targeting of schoolkids to try a little harder, and to realize that what they do today can make a difference years down the road. It was a good message.

Even Florida RNC chairman Jim Greer, who initially opposed this speech because he felt it was pushing Obama's "socialist agenda" onto kids, came out and said it was a good speech and he was going to let his kids hear it. Of course, then he had to go muck it up by saying later that it wasn't the speech that Obama had "intended to make," that he rewrote it. Really? I wonder how Mr. Greer knows this? Did he see a copy of the speech that Obama decided not to give? I have to say, I'm amazed at his ability to understand the unspoken intentions of our President. That is some parlor trick.

A pre-speech question and answer session with a handful of students wasn't part of the speech, and I found it even more interesting. If anyone wanted to accuse the President of pushing his agenda, that's where he did it. Except it was kids asking the questions, and they were some good ones. One kid even asked about universal health care. For anyone who thinks that they need to protect kids from hearing any of Obama's ideas, I...I...I just don't understand where you're coming from. These are ideas, and discussions, and kids should be interested in the workings of our government and want to be engaged in the process. The restriction of dialogue and information seems positively medieval to me. I honestly do not understand why anyone would have a problem with that. (And let me reiterate: I was not aware at the time of the controversy over GHW Bush speaking in schools. I would not have agreed with any protests. Let the President speak.)

Now that I've learned what cognitive dissonance is, I seem to be seeing it everywhere. Whether it's Mr. Greer giving an actual compliment to the President, followed by backpedaling and justifying his initial protest because of his perceived "intentions" on behalf of the President, or the off-her-meds Orly Taitz who continues to file lawsuits stating that President Obama is a Kenyan citizen and filing not one but two birth certificates--both of which are obvious fakes--to prove it, it seems that our country is absolutely lousy with cognitive dissonance right now.

Oh, and Obama's "socialist agenda?"

Today I read an interview with Frank Llewellyn, the National Director of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is the largest socialist organization in the country. Here are excerpts:

Q. Where on the scale does Obama fall on socialism?

A. There are many ways we can say that Obama is not a socialist, and that he is in fact governing as a centrist, but that doesn't necessarily get people to listen. Clearly the Republicans are saying it since that's all they've got to say. I don't believe they're going to stop making this charge.

It's good for me, we have more media attention as a result of this stuff than anything else in the last 10 years. When I announce our membership numbers, I'm contemplating sending Michael Steele a letter thanking him.

Q. On the school controversy, what was your reaction to people saying that the president speaking to schools is socialist? What goes through your mind?

A. The same thing that's gone through my mind every time the Republicans talk about socialism. It's silly, surreal, uninformed, and it certainly doesn't reflect what modern socialists think, and it doesn't reflect what Obama thinks. Obama's a market guy! Obama believes in markets. He probably spoke more about the role of the markets in the primary than Clinton did. So, there's no question that the Republicans are doing the same thing they did when Roosevelt was president -- confusing somebody who is trying to save capitalism from itself with somebody who is trying to destroy it. He's not trying to destroy capitalism.

And this school thing is just ridiculous.

Q. Is Obama a socialist?

A. No.

Q. Is he a secret socialist?

A. He's not a secret socialist. He's not any kind of socialist at all. He's not challenging the power of the corporations. The banking reforms that have been suggested are not particularly far reaching. He says we must have room for innovation. But we had innovation -- look where it got us. So I just...I can't...I mean laugh out loud, really.

I was on Glenn Beck recently and he said Canada is a socialist country. Well, there is a party in Canada that's called "socialist" within the Democratic party, that's won some provincial elections, never won a federal election. It would be news to them that Canada is socialist. So it's just unserious.

They always use socialism to try to defeat moderate reforms...just because something is government run doesn't mean it's socialist. I've never heard anybody say we have a socialist army.

Read the full article here.

So let me get this straight: the right wingers are saying that Obama is a socialist, or that he has a socialist agenda. (I've read a few people who have called it "socialistical." Watch the extraneous suffixes, folks.) Yet the Grand Poobah of the largest socialist organization in the country says that Obama is in no way, shape, or form--or in policy--a socialist. He finds the suggestion "silly, surreal, and uninformed." Do you think that will get people to stop calling Obama a socialist? Not a chance. "Uninformed" is the key word there. As Llewellyn states, government run is not the equivalent of socialist. But the cognitive dissonance will continue, with people ignoring facts, logic, and reality.

Tonight, I'll be settling in with my hubby and we'll watch our President's speech to a joint session of Congress concerning health care reform. I'm looking forward to it, and I think he'll be bringing his A-game.

Trying to understand the illogical

Milwaukee Dan #2 posted a Newsweek article on Facebook the other day called "Lies of Mass Destruction" by Sharon Begley. In the article, the author tries to understand the reasoning behind those who continue to believe several lies about health care reform, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that there is no truth to the claims. (This also applies to Birthers and their refusal to accept a valid, legal document.) I've wondered about that, too, so I was very interested in this article, which believes that there is a psychological aspect to this phenomenon.

As I've written before, I don't have a degree in Psychology or anything like that, but it's something that I've always found interesting. I loved the couple of classes I took in college, and I've just always enjoyed reading about various personality disorders and other psychological disorders. I guess you could say it's a hobby. At least it's one I don't have to buy a room full of supplies for!

The article states that people stick with their false beliefs, even though there is ample evidence to the contrary, because of something called "motivated reasoning." It means that people tend to look for information that confirms their beliefs rather than contradicts them. Anything that is not in line with what they believe is either completely ignored, or rationalized away. This comes as no surprise, because I wrote some time ago (I think during the election) about a study that showed that people tend to migrate towards news sources that jibe with their own beliefs. I certainly do that in watching CNN and MSNBC, or reading Huffington Post, but I do read sites like Politics Daily and magazines like Time which include both right and left wing columnists. You won't find me watching Faux News because I find it...well, sort of ridiculous...but I'm sure there are many people that refuse to watch CNN because they feel the same way about it. I think most of us recognize that we gravitate towards opinions that are similar to ours, whether in a news channel or in friends.

A study is mentioned in which the scientists conducted surveys concerning Saddam Hussein's link to 9/11. That was the main reason we attacked Iraq: Saddam blew up the Towers, right? Everyone knows that...except Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. 73% of the 246 participants still believed in a link between Saddam and 9/11, and extended interviews were conducted with 49 of those people. Even after they were shown evidence that there was no such link--including the admission by President Bush that there was no link--48 of them still found a way to justify our attack of Iraq. They did this by using inferred justification, in which they rationalize, "Well, since we invaded, we had to have a good reason to do so...if it wasn't because of 9/11, it was because he had weapons of mass destruction." Of course, there were no such weapons. "Well, it had to be because of something." They worked backwards from the invasion to try to find justification. Some just expressed confusion, like "I don't know what I know!" about the difference between what they believed and what the facts showed.

This is due to a psychological concept called "cognitive dissonance." I only vaguely recalled the term, so I did a little further research. It's basically what happens when what you believe to be true conflicts with evidence showing that it is not. A person experiencing cognitive dissonance will try to relieve the psychological tension this causes by finding other evidence that confirms their beliefs, or by ignoring fact or discrediting the sources of such facts.

This relates to the persistent lies about health care reform, and President Obama himself, in this way: there were millions of people who did not vote for President Obama. They have found something here to latch onto in order to rationalize their belief that they made the correct choice. Whether they believe the nonsense about him not being a citizen, or point to bogus evidence that he's a Marxist, a Socialist, or a Muslim, or think that health care reform will mean insuring illegal aliens, it's all about cognitive dissonance. It's changing the facts--or ignoring or disbelieving them--to fit your own version of things. If someone didn’t vote for him because they don’t care for his politics, that’s one thing; believing obvious lies is quite another.

The mind is an amazing thing, but what energy it must take to constantly try to rationalize mistaken beliefs, whatever they happen to concern. I would think that would be a full-time job, and would lead to further psychological conflict. I'm sure we all rationalize our behaviors to some extent ("I'm going to eat that extra doughnut because I had a bad day," or "I'm not going to get lung cancer because I don't smoke as much as some people do"), but when you ignore clear evidence, that seems to go a little beyond simple rationalization and into the realm of delusion.

I almost forgot! Rabbit rabbit rabbit...evil spirits begone from Nutwood! :)