Being a responsible politician requires attention to detail, as well as an ability to make decisions based on discernible facts. This is especially the case when the discernible facts contradict one's personal experience. Voters frequently delude themselves into supporting the intuitive hero type, the politician who 'shoots you straight' or acts 'from the gut' or 'the gut feeling.' There's a certain populist appeal in that kind of approach, derived from an unfortunate sense that a leader shouldn't be more knowledgeable than the rest of us, but s/he should nonetheless be a 'natural.' For the British readers, Churchill comes to mind. Independent of his policy chops, the man remains a celebrated international figure for his fortitude rather than his discerning mind. No one cared if Churchill applied sophisticated policy analysis (granted, the whole WWII thing was kind of a no-brainer), just that he was committed to an intuitive sense of being on the right side of history. That's what the people wanted to hear, and that's what they still hear in the echoes of Churchill's name. A crass, American example ('crass' and 'American' are, for the British, almost synonymous) of 'from the gut' populism is G.W. Bush (does Churchill turn about in his grave at this comparison? Maybe, maybe not). Bush is perhaps the modern-day epitome of a political leader who generated enough support to satisfy his agenda through sheer, unenlightened conviction. Whether for good or ill, blind conviction is a powerful and dangerous political instrument. A responsible politician must know when to heed the material facts that stand between conviction and outcome, so that the outcome is a product of discernment and deliberation and not merely dedication. Outcomes tend to be better across the board when they reflect some accounting of material reality.
This is all just a preamble for my primary point: cats eat grass. Now you're saying 'look, Bear, cats are carnivores, they don't eat grass. Cats eat mice and moles and other small rodents, sometimes bugs, whatever else we feed them of the meat variety, occasionally milk or cheese. But if I put a plate of asparagus in front of the cat it's surely not going to eat the asparagus.' Well enough, but if you put a plate of grass in front of your cat then you will soon observe that the cat will eat the grass. 'But Bear, that makes no sense. I've personally never seen a cat eat grass. And I know that cats eat mice. And I never give my cat any grass, and my cat does fine without any grass.' Maybe so, but if you were to feed it grass it would eat the grass. Further, the grass would improve its digestive health. Further, the grass would serve as a supplementary source of vitamins A and D. To put it simply, you should really start feeding your cat some bits of grass every once in a while, because this will produce better outcomes for the both of you. Counterintuitive, I know, but that doesn't make it wrong.
'Bear, how am I to trust you. Are you not a politician?'
Photographic evidence here, including a fun bit of swatting around 40 seconds in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz-b0zuCqNk
PMB Issue 4 thus concludes with PMB Maxim 4: Regardless of conviction, the grass on the other side of the fence is not necessarily greener, but your cat would eat it regardless.
