Real American Solutions

The Most Beautiful Thought

2026-08-27T12:27:25.831-07:00

What is the most beautiful, most compelling, most fulfilling, most comforting thought in the world? It seems like a tough question, but it’s simple. It doesn’t have to do with the beauty of a sunrise, the cooing of a baby, the loyalty of a dog, or any of the other thoughts preserved in paintings, poetry or literature.

No, the most beautiful thought in the world is: “Aha, I was right all along!” This explains so much contemporary behavior. It explains the difficulty of getting people to change their minds in a host of situations. It also explains the reluctance of people to do research to find more evidence when they have already determined what they are sure is the right answer, knowing it's right because it supports their firm beliefs and opinions. It happens in interpersonal situations, like family squabbles, but, with the rise of social media, it is most notable in politics.

This is certainly not a new phenomenon. A notable example of this happened early in the century with the George W. Bush misquote desk calendars for sale at many bookstores. People who voted against him, could be filled with delight every morning as they tore off a page to see another verbal gaffe made by the president – delight at knowing, “Aha, I was right all along, he’s not smart enough to be president.” On the other side of the aisle, pictures of Joe Biden being flagged down and turned in right direction by the “Easter Bunny” during the Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn likewise filled his detractors with delight. “Of course he's not competent. Who’s running the country?” And Donald Trump takes the cake in terms of the preconceived love/hate emotional reactions. Both parties wanting to have been “right all along” about his virtues on one hand and his dishonesty on the other.

The same attitude prevails around controversial topics like man-made climate change, the origin and handling by government experts of COVID-19, nuclear power generation, data centers and so many other issues. People plant their figurative flags and express their firm opinions. If they look more deeply into the matter, there is the unwelcome possibility of having to admit defeat, back down and feel embarrassed. The favored alternative is to ignore any opposing fact or argument, no matter how firm, while continuing the search for supporting data or supporting expert opinions for their side, all in an effort to maintain that comforting feeling of being right all along.

How familiar does this sound? Does it not explain the constant bickering on Facebook and X – bickering that never settles the matter but rather encourages each party to “go back to their corner” and rest up until the bell sounds for another round? Does this not highlight the futility of ranting on social media (or at the dining room table at Thanksgiving), expecting to change someone’s mind? It’s as effective as throwing a bucket of cold water on someone and expecting them to thank you.

The mind is influenced by a number of factors including emotions, pattern recognition from past experience, familiarity and learned associations. As a result, early decisions or choices are often formed by a fast-thinking process, a gut reaction that forces conclusions and leaves our ability to express our reasoning unable to catch up. In so many cases, we decide first and then look for supporting evidence to help explain, a habit designed to make us look like our conscious mind is in control, to make us look rational. All done automatically; and all done with the understandable payoff of having the most beautiful thought, “I was right all along.”

Predicting the Future

2024-11-15T10:06:00.000-08:00

It's an established fact that most people in the United States think they can predict the future.

Look at the results of the last election. Approximately half the people in the country are delighted that the future looks bright. The other half are not just disappointed; they are depressed and frightened.

Why do we act this way? It's because we are absolutely convinced that we can predict the future. Any doubt that may linger in our minds is wiped away by the dire or uplifting predictions, the enthusiasm or glum behavior of our chosen news outlets. One side sees the country as saved, while the other sees the country is doomed. One party sees a savior in the White House; the other sees a fascist, a dictator worse than Hitler. (Had the election gone the other way, one side would see a savior in the White House and the other a communist, a dictator worse than Stalin.)

And whose fault are these misconceptions and exaggerations? It's the fault of the very political parties we support and the news media we follow. The messages have been reinforced daily for the last six months, over and over. And it continues. Fear sells, and we have been set up, manipulated by the news media and by social media to the point that we really believe the predictions. We are sure the we can see into the future.

Face it. If you could predict the future, you would be fabulously wealthy, living on your own private island away from all this chaos. The fact that you are not means that you are, to one degree or another, WRONG. So why do you continue to kid yourself? What's in it for you - except a chance to ride the biennial emotional roller coaster with a ticket price of your own mental stability.

Thinking Things Through

2023-12-07T08:27:00.000-08:00

Before making up your mind, especially on a matter of principal, it's important to think things through. Here a some recent examples from my personal experience.

Because of a reduction in space at a new facility, I have been storing in my garage various items for the entertainment committee. Recently in preparation for the annual holiday party, the organizer asked me if I had any coffee cups in one of the half dozen storage bins. I told her I had many sleeves of foam cups. She was distressed, "I hate to use those. I worry about harming the environment." "Well," I said, "We can throw the out, possibly harming the environment, or we can use them and then throw them out possibly harming the environment. Once they are purchased, those seem to be the only options." I guess we will eventually use them.

Many years ago an admin associate at my work confessed to me an unusual situation. She was asked to make several copies for a meeting of the executives. After the copies were printed, she realized that she stood a good chance of being reprimanded by the cost conscious group for not printing them on both sides. To avoid the risk, she threw them out, reset the printer for two-sided copies and ran another batch. She was off the hook, and the executives were happy, little realizing that their bullying approach to cost-savings was driving counterproductive behavior within the organization. (And based on this and other examples, it was clear that they also didn't have a business climate or culture that would lead to correcting the problem.)

In a conversation at a family get together, the subject came up about self-checkout at the grocery store. It seems many people in person and on social media like to brag/virtue signal about how they only use live checkers because they don't want to take jobs away from people. I said that I don't worry about that because my local grocery store has had help-wanted signs up for a couple of years. Nobody's jobs are in jeopardy. The situation is quite the opposite. He responded, "Now that you mention it, my grocery store also has help-wanted signs up. I never thought about it that way."

Related to the last story, how many people worry about all the telephone operators, who used to work as intermediaries for all long-distance phone calls (or elevator operators or gas station attendants)? Most people today are not old enough to remember those jobs and would feel inconvenienced at the added wait time.

Imagine all the other situations where people make up their minds and take a stand on problems that only need a little more thought, a little critical thinking.

The Old Protection Racket

2023-04-08T15:24:00.001-07:00

Imagine this. You deicide to open a little business, maybe a retail store. Business is going fine.

One day some tough-looking guys show up at your door and walk up to the counter. But they are not customers. The one guys says, with mock innocence,"You got a nice little business here. It would be a shame if anything happened to it." You agree that it would be a shame if anything happened to it. The tough guy explains that to ensure you stay in business, you will periodically get to pay out what "the boss" determines to be a fair amount. If you fail to pay enough or pay on time, there will be consequences.

It seems like a scene from a noire movie from years ago. But wait! A variation of this is happening today to every small business (and every individual). It's called income tax.

As we approach the middle of April, consider the parallels. You have to pay an amount determined to be fair by powers over which you have no control. If you don't pay enough or don't pay on time, you can face fines, penalties and, in extreme cases, worse. They can destroy your "nice little business." They can hassle and harass you until you pay, and you can't even call the cops - they are the cops!

Consider also all the small businesses that were forced to go under without the government having to resort to the tax code. Governments told them what they could and couldn't do, who they could and couldn't serve, based on some vague, questionable public health concerns. In Michigan you could shop for groceries, but the same store could not sell other items, for example, home improvement and gardening supplies.

The only difference between this loss of freedom through forced compliance and the good old protection racket is that in the latter case, we didn't elect "the boss." But the people of Michigan, and many other places, are apparently OK with this intrusion on their freedom as they reelected the same bosses (or their close associates).

Do Seatbelts Really Save Lives?

2022-04-02T11:02:00.002-07:00

A little over a year ago, I retired this blog with a final summary. But I just can't keep quiet about some of the craziness out there.

I know the news agencies thrive on picking and choosing what they tell us and then telling us in a way that supports their political narrative. That can be expected. But when they, apparently unwittingly, present real information in the form of misleading headlines, it appears someone is not thinking things through.

Recently CBS (and others) came out with this news story about inadequate seatbelt warnings. The headline reads, "47% of people killed were not wearing a seatbelt." This gives people who do not want to wear their seatbelts a perfect argument that 53% percent of people killed were wearing a seatbelt - very little difference. So what's the big deal? The headline is not only not persuasive, it can be turned on itself to draw the exact opposite conclusion.

What needs to be said is that about 10% of people choose not to wear their seatbelt, but people not wearing seatbelts account for almost half the people killed in auto accidents. That means your chance of dying are about nine times higher if you don't buckle up. That's quite a difference from the implied comparison of 47% to 53%!

With use of seatbelts actually declining in recent years, wasn't anybody at CBS paying attention to the possible misinterpretation of their message? Poorly presented news is little better than fake news.

Final Summary

2021-01-11T07:00:00.028-08:00

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves….” (Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene III, L. 140-141)

I have spent the last nine and a half years posting over 1000 entries here with clear examples on the same subject: Behavior has consequences. We reap what we sow.

Life in America resembles a buffet counter where people fill their plates, then sit down to complain about the meal. Their money problems, weight problems and so many others are blamed on the environment or big business and deceptive advertising: “The clown made me eat fast food; Saturday morning cartoons made me buy too many toys for the kids!” Then they expect the government to bail them out with new rules, restrictions and handouts. Objections are met by expert testimony that willpower is short-term or that chemicals in the sofa are making people fatter.

Tolerance used to mean listening politely to other points of view. Today it means accepting and excusing weakness, failure and dysfunctional behavior, while silencing the opposition. Therefore, instead of letting citizens learn from the consequences of their choices, we bail them out over and over. Lack of standards and low expectations are described as compassion as the government rewards bad behavior.

Without a strong emphasis on critical thinking, our prehistoric brains have not been able to evolve and adapt as quickly as our technology has advanced. Accelerating technical development over the last few decades has left us exposed to hacking, phishing, identity theft, trolls, cyber-bullies, doxing, politically-inspired boycotts, canceling, new addictions and other threats unheard of just a few years ago. People struggle to keep up with their smartphones and computers. We have apps that allow us to keep track of everything “on the fly” leaving no time to relax or relate to others. Technology has led to both sophisticated weapons systems and laws that prohibit crossing the street or driving a car while texting.

An accepted philosophy is, "If it saves one life, it's worth it." This only leads to more restrictions to our freedom. Do we want to devolve into a society where we are all in figurative straight jackets to keep us from ever harming others or ourselves? Freedom and responsibility are the alternative but no one has the guts to expect and promote those ideas.

The culture has evolved from one of self-reliance and independence to one where every need becomes a right, including the right not to be confronted or offended.

In short, Americans, regardless of education level, act as if the government is always there to bail them out, some magic money tree will buffer them from any negative economic activity, where all their problems are someone else’s fault with an easy answer or magic pill or supplement or device for any condition – real or imagined -- any failure can be blamed on unfavorable conditions or some evil power brokers. They assume every appliance/convenience has been around forever and would be impossible to live without.

It is that mindset, ignoring the five key dimensions, not the government or political divisiveness or capitalism or systemic bias, that threatens our way of life.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the last 1000 posts for clear examples.

A Nation Divided

2021-01-08T07:00:00.064-08:00

Well, here we are again; behavior has consequences. Poor personal behavioral choices grow into societal problems.

For four or five years, responsibility for a divided America has been pinned on Donald Trump. The media and the opposition party led the way, giving him no credit and all the blame. Citizens were drawn in and equally divided by the merciless news coverage and personal attacks on one side and by the bombastic self-promotion and polemic tweets on the other. The media expect everyone to agree that he had not one single redeeming quality or made one good policy decision?

There certainly was a middle ground, but no one was interested in finding it. After the 2020 election, those who claimed to be distressed by the Trump-inspired divisiveness did not let up on their mocking, criticism and name-calling, while those backing the president were equally combative. Neither acted as if unity was an important goal. It's like a habit they can’t seem to break. Irreconcilable differences drive the chatter on social media and in the streets.

Looking dispassionately at the record reveals that President Trump made some good decisions and some terrible ones. Employment and the economy improved at a rapid pace. Operation Warp Speed cleared the way for a rapid approval of vaccines. There's more peace in the world with fewer American troops overseas. But frequently his personal behavior was appalling.

No doubt President Biden will likewise make some good decisions and some poor ones. Those on his side will praise the successes; those on other side will heap on the criticism.

"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, from The Gulag Archipelago.

Unfortunately, Americans are not in the mood for a nuanced, nobody's perfect, stance toward our leadership. They are fighting mad and will continue to choose insults over rational debate. The media revels in this attitude, and they will do everything they can to promote and stir it up to keep their ratings high and their audience on edge. By abandoning perspective, discipline and critical thinking, we allow ourselves to be whipped up into these ideological frenzies.

We can choose to be influenced by these one-sided presentations or see them for what they are – blatant manipulation and propaganda. In many cases, journalism has been replaced by editorializing pretending to be reporting along with outright scare tactics. Americans could stop reacting, take control and demand better, but they don't seem interested.

Yes, the nation is divided with no end in sight, but it’s no one’s fault but our own.

We Are All Doomed

2021-01-01T07:00:00.070-08:00

It’s not nuclear war, population explosion, the Chinese economy or Russian hackers, not from Iran joining North Korea as an irresponsible nuclear power. Forget climate change or which party is in power. We are doomed instead by a disregard for the five dimensions, which leads to poor individual and societal decisions yielding unfavorable consequences. Just look around.

In the past the same technologies endured for centuries. Sons did the same work as their fathers and grandfathers. The lot of children was the same as that of their parents. Today, jobs disappear or change radically on a regular basis as new technologies require new skills and habits.

Computers moved from occupying a room to a desk to a lap to a pocket in less than 40 years. As each new modern convenience arrives, the time to adapt becomes shorter and shorter. We are doomed because Americans seem unable to use that new power wisely, partially because, as Stephen Hawking put it, “we still have the instincts…that we had in the caveman days.”

Suppose a time traveler told Congress in 1900, “The automobile looks promising, but in a hundred years, building and maintaining roads will cost $150 billion annually. Cars will contribute to major environmental problems and lead to millions of unproductive hours in delays and congestion. Annual traffic deaths will surpass 30,000 by 1946, climb to over 50,000 by 1970 and never again fall below 30,000.” Cars would have been banned; we’d still be riding horses.

When automobile-related death rates did drop, the change came not from behavior, but technology and regulations: lap belts, shoulder belts, airbags and improved car design. As people felt safer, behavior got sloppier: speeding, texting, forgetting the children in the back seat. Technology brings new miracles every day, as users become more careless and irresponsible.

Similarly, electronic communication advanced as email, social media, Zoom and many other tools brought us together more efficiently. But they quickly spawned negative behavior. People fell off cliffs trying to get more impressive photos. Teens challenged others to dangerous stunts and bullied around the clock.

Social media became a better way to send anonymous death threats to strangers, to insult and intimidate, to organize mobs, to silence or cancel individuals and get them fired, to boycott companies. Instead of communicating respectfully, we make up our minds without verifying facts and use our position to express hatred toward “the other side.” Being right is more important than having a relationship.

Technology gives us more free time, but we spend it virtue signaling or passing along snide comments. On-line fighting, mindless entertainment and superficial interests crowd out substantive problem solving and real communication. Cute pets go viral. A 7-year-old has 17 million followers with 26 billion views of toy reviews to the tune of $22 million per year while big cities have thousands of homeless people on the streets and multiple murders every weekend.

Everyone should be happier, but that’s not the case. Modern conveniences leave Americans time to develop new addictions and imaginary ills. The medical community is complicit, adding new conditions to the list of diagnoses: occupational burnout declared a medical problem by WHO and obesity called a chronic disease by JAMA. People demand comfort animals on airline flights, and college students protest against offensive material and insufficient coddling. People embrace the victim role rather than expecting to work through their own problems.

Stress is rampant. Levels of depression and suicide are up. A new book tells us, “One in five American adults are taking a drug for a psychiatric problem.” In an effort to overcome boredom, we buy so much stuff that the storage industry has new facilities popping up everywhere – then we buy books about how to declutter.

Many serious diseases have been all but wiped out, but some disparage vaccinations and impatiently turn to charlatans selling products based on fairy-tale science: ancient medicine, therapeutic touch, essential oils, homeopathy and other magic potions to cure minor aches and pains. One mother, following social media guidance, fed her sons bleach to cure their autism. The authorities didn't step in because that’s not considered child abuse, but letting kids walk to school or the park unsupervised is.

How many Americans could survive the everyday hardships of just a century ago? Living without cell phones seems unbearable. Try giving up cars, indoor plumbing, central heating and electricity.

Each new breakthrough has both benefits and dangers. We take the former for granted and accept the latter as merely a side effect. We bumble along as artificial solutions hide the urgency.

This lax behavior as the world changes around us does not work. The five key dimensions are shunned, considered passé. Don’t understand economic principles; don’t think critically; don’t be disciplined and responsible; and don’t have perspective. New technology and the government will solve everything – until they don’t.

Is California Insane?

2020-12-28T07:00:00.079-08:00

We are all familiar with the stories of the California governor ignoring his own Covid-19 rules to dine at an exclusive upscale restaurant with friends and supporters and of the LA County Supervisor who dined outdoors at her favorite restaurant hours after voting to ban such activity as too dangerous but before the ban took effect. They go out and party, then lock down the people who elected them.

That’s just simple hypocrisy. That happens across the nation, although California does seem to have a talent for electing some real nutcases to various levels of government.

We almost expect that kind of hypocrisy from any politician, most of whom are elected on the basis of their charm, good looks or name recognition rather than their ethics and intelligence. But that’s not why California stands out. Here are just two of many examples.

The Glock Company manufactures and sells guns. On their site they list the GLOCK 19, a 9 mm Luger. It’s a handgun with a magazine capacity of 15 to 33 rounds. It’s not unlike side arms carried by police. The site carries a warning, only one warning, and it has nothing to do with gun safety. It reads: “This Product can expose you to chemicals including lead [in the bullets?], which is known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other productive harm.”

The sun can also cause skin cancer. Will they soon require that all doors that lead outside carry a similar warning? The danger of catching cancer from a gun falls far behind other, more immediate dangers.

Last August an estimated 3.3 million in California were “Facing [the] Largest Power Outages In Its History … Amid Record Heatwave.” On October 23 the news came: “Due to extreme fire risk the utility is shutting off 466,000 customers between Sunday and Tuesday.” Then on December 5 the news read: “As parts of California rev up for another round of potentially fire-fueling gusty winds, Pacific Gas and Electric is warning 130,000 customers across 15 counties that they could lose power starting early Monday morning.”

Disregard the fact that many experts believe California added to the wildfire problem with poor forestry management. Just think about those stories in light of this headline from last September, “California Governor Signs Order Banning Sales Of New Gasoline Cars By 2035.”

Picture hundreds of thousands of citizens stuck at home on a regular basis without electricity to charge their cars (or their phones). It’s just one more good idea – unless you can see the unintended consequences. California citizens can sit at home in the dark and applaud their governor for saving the planet.

The antics of California would be funny if they weren’t completely crazy, and if the rest of the country weren’t slowly drifting in the same direction.

Medical Science

2020-12-25T07:00:00.075-08:00

Everything is moving so fast. The media reports on new research, studies and discoveries daily. People are living longer, healthier lives due in part to medical advancements.

I expect that this endless parade of seemingly miracle cures drives people to look beyond medical science and put their faith in so many unproven remedies. Scientific-sounding sales pitches, ancient wisdom or endorsements by friends, relatives and celebrities lure them in. Then all it takes is a little placebo effect to convince them that they have made a great discovery, and they too spread the word.

Americans throw away countless millions of dollars in pursuit of relief from their latest aches and pains. Here are a couple more examples from reliable sources.

The first is about acupuncture. Many people believe acupuncture is an effective and safe alternative to mainstream medicine. Safety is not really the issue here. In the category of complimentary and alternative medicine, most of the pills and procedures are safe because they don’t do anything. The question in this case is whether it works.

If acupuncture works, it seems reasonable to assume that acupuncture points really exist and that experts or experienced practitioners can find them. Otherwise it would be random needling, a technique that would fly in the face of a theory based on the existence of qi and its meridians accessible at particular acupuncture points.

Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies after looking at 14 separate studies found “’considerable variation’ in localization of acupoints among qualified medical acupuncturists.” They admit that accurate point location is a significant factor in effective treatment, but the various methods of finding them yield highly inconsistent results.

Furthermore, my original source points out that the depth of the needles to access the point is not specified; and if the points were real, “wouldn’t they vary in location [from person to person] just as other anatomical structures” like blood vessels do? So many unanswered questions throw considerable doubt on the practice.

The second example concerns chiropractors charging thousand of dollars, not covered by insurance, for spinal decompression on a special device to alleviate back pain. One such device is “a mechanical table attached to Space Age-looking controls that its manufacturer claims can stretch the disks of the vertebrae.” (Medieval torture chambers had a similar table but without the space age-looking controls.)

A group called Fair Warning, “based on review of lawsuits, scientific studies, government documents, chiropractic websites and interviews with experts, found that the claims of success for spinal decompression stretch the truth,” and that the treatment “has never been proven [to be effective] in scientifically rigorous studies.”

While Internet advertising and participating chiropractors rave about success, insurance companies describe the machines as experimental and investigative. While the promoters boast of success rates of 86% to 90%, investigators found their studies “lacked scientific rigor” and that “no definite conclusions could be drawn.”

A professor from Oregon Health and Science University and an expert on the subject of lower back pain says, “Eight in 10 people with back pain get better on their own.” The marginal difference with this machine, even if true, hardly seems like a good investment, especially since it has also resulted in serious injury.

Both cases are scientifically very dubious. Unfortunately, science means nothing to Americans unless it supports their preconceived notions. Climate change is real, based on science; but nuclear power is dangerous, based on emotion.

Note: To receive in your email a very informative free weekly newsletter on the latest health scams, sign up at this link.

Critical Thinking in Crisis

2020-12-21T07:00:00.134-08:00

American critical thinking is hard to find and completely disappears in the face of a crisis. During the virus scare last spring, two types of info emerged. One, often from the medical professionals, was the calm reasonable kind. It was right to be careful, practice social distancing, wash hands frequently and wear a mask. That message was typically drowned out by the breathless, panicky pandemic warnings seen on the news.

We got the daily numbers of cases and deaths. We watched stories of people hoarding Purell, toilet paper and water. During the first week of the 15 days of voluntary lockdown, there were a shortage of coconut water and cellphone videos of fights in grocery stores over paper goods! Even before the disease got to the US, diners shunned Chinese restaurants. Then we were asked to stay in and practice social distancing, but some college students on spring break and others couldn’t be bothered. Today’s fun and freedom took precedence over the possible spread of the disease tomorrow or in a few weeks.

On the first Monday that the schools closed to protect students, I went to my local grocery store to pick up a prescription. It was overrun with parents who brought their school-aged children shopping. Did they think a good activity to keep them “isolated” and protected was a family shopping trip?

Day 12 brought this from CBS News: “Egg prices triple in 3 weeks amid coronavirus panic shopping.” This wasn’t price gouging; it was a genuine shortage. At the same time the price of regular gasoline dropped to around two dollars a gallon, also a result of supply and demand. Most people were driving much less and, for some reason, stocking up on eggs. Only the first makes logical sense. The CBS headline got it right, calling the run on hand sanitizer, paper products, bottled water and eggs “panic buying.”

Politicians and media commentators capitalize on this tendency toward fear and panic, encouraging the same reaction to win elections on one hand or to keep ratings up on the other. It has gotten progressively worse. Manufactured fear quickly turns to anger, then to hatred and to more fear. It makes people easier to control. Thus, politicians count on citizens leaving their brains outside the polling place and voting based on fear and hatred while the media counts on them to be glued to the TV for the next shocking update. Since we fail to remain calm and rational, we no longer receive calm, rational messages.

The same kind of "thinking" applies to everyday situations as technology gets more and more sophisticated and the people using it don't. We discover nuclear power and use it for bombs and submarines: but try to use it to produce pollution-free electric power and NO! No one can be serious about climate change and not be a advocate for nuclear power. Chlorine gas is deadly; chlorine in a swimming pool is safe. Nuclear bombs are deadly; nuclear power plants are safe. But the opposition is led by politicians and activists who are either well intentioned and ignorant or who have a financial interest in alternative energy sources. Regardless, they use fear and panic to sell their position, and it works.

The internet and cell phones allow rapid communications and information, but they lead to a lack of privacy, more sophisticated scams, cyber-bullying, targeted marketing for legitimate and bogus products, a mindset of finding people guilty before evidence is submitted and without a hearing. This technology which has so many positive applications, is used to incite riots and demonstrations and to spread misinformation and whacko theories.

We have more food, and people are overeating. We have more prosperity, and people are going broke. We have more leisure, and people are more stressed. We vote based on fear and hatred. We never calm down to think things through. That’s the America we live in.

Flashback – The Blame Game

2020-12-18T07:00:00.050-08:00

Many Americans stumble through life following rules of thumb they heard somewhere while making no attempt to verify their effectiveness: drink 8 glasses of water a day; avoid eating fat; wolf down Vitamin C for a cold; shun fast food, etc. They take the same attitude toward so many myths: fear GMOs and food additives; fear nuclear power; fear fluoridation of drinking water; fear vaccines; worry about (extremely rare) school shootings and child abduction and more. When anything goes wrong they look for someone else to blame and to the government to fix it. Many legislators understand and relish their role as savior, which allows this lack of responsibility to continue.

Here from almost 7 years ago are my comments on this tendency to blame and depend on others to help.

[I just finished reading a book called Scapegoat: A History of Blaming Other People. In it the author tells how, back as far as the Garden of Eden, we have been finding others to blame for our problems and shortcomings. We have blamed foreigners, other religions, the rich, the poor, bankers, God, Satan, witches, priests, kings and animals, even the weather. I think he left out all the “Bigs”: big business, big pharma, big tobacco, big oil, big government, big banks and the rest. No one takes responsibility and it began with Adam blaming "the woman" and Eve blaming the serpent.

This was coincident with two news articles: one about a common whipping boy, MacDonald’s, and the other about our lack of faith in the government.

The first is in the form of a video. A high school science teacher from Iowa challenged his students to develop a diet for him based purely on the menu from McDonald’s. They were instructed to vary his meals and keep the total intake of calories and fats to within set guidelines. After eating three meals everyday from MacDonald’s and beginning an exercise program where he walked for 45 minutes a day, he lost 37 pounds and his cholesterol dropped from 249 to 170. This flies in the face of popular opinion and documentaries like “Super-size Me” that try to shift the blame from individual behavior to the fast food industry. As the teacher says, “It’s our choices that make us fat, not MacDonald’s.” Behavior has consequences.

The second related piece of news is the results of a recent poll showing that about 70% of Americans have little faith in government. “The percentage of Americans saying the nation is heading in the right direction hasn't topped 50 in about a decade.” Many are looking for fundamental changes in the structure of government, as “61 percent are pessimistic about the system of government overall and the way leaders are chosen.” The underlying premise here goes against the idea of responsibility as we look to the government to solve our problems and worry about their inability to do so, instead of being more self-reliant.

Perhaps it’s time to stop looking for someone else to blame, whether it be the government, fast food, or any of the other popular targets. It’s time to start solving our problems with better choices all the time.]

Health Insurance Is Not The Same As Healthcare

2020-12-14T07:00:00.105-08:00

“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm; but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” ― T.S. Eliot

For more years than I have been writing this, politicians have been ranting about the cost of healthcare and how to fix it. Unfortunately, the conversation does not center on healthcare, instead they keep talking about insurance. The reason is simple: Insurance is much easier to fix; just throw money at it. Healthcare itself is a complex mechanism with many moving parts. But fixing insurance does not change the underlying issues. In some cases it makes them worse.

People often talk about how healthcare was good, but not great, back in the 1960s; and it was affordable. Some doctors still made house calls. They yearn for the good old days. Along these lines, an interesting comparison occurred to me.

Back in 1960 a typical television looked like this.

Just over half the population owned a black & white tube television, and you were lucky if you could get five channels. The TV had no remote, and there was no cable, so you needed an outside antenna or an inside antenna known as "Rabbit Ears". In 1960 an RCA black & white 21 inch console TV cost $268, most people financed this for about $10 a month.

Today the equivalent of $268, adjusted for inflation is about $2400, and here is what you can buy for a little more than half that!

But the costs of medicine and the education moved in the opposite direction. Today we live longer and healthier due to medical advances, but the price has increased faster than inflation. The cost of becoming a medical professional has likewise soared.

One reason for both, ironically, is government interference: low cost insurance on one hand and student loans on the other. This greatly reduced competition. Make it easier for citizens to pay for something, and the people who sell it have no incentive to control costs.

The only way to control cost, any cost, is to focus on the reasons behind the high cost. Politicians are silent about these underlying reasons for soaring healthcare costs, and have made no plans to deal with them. The primary reasons for the high cost of healthcare are summarized below. (A thorough explanation was given back in the spring of 2012.)

Insurance Design: Insurance companies separate the provider from the patient.
Innovation: New medical technology and treatments save lives but add cost.
Lack of open competition.
Over-testing.
Billing and coordination issues.
Regulations and Restrictions: Rules vary from state to state.
Liability: The high cost of malpractice insurance affects all patients' bills.
Lax eligibility rules and outright fraud.

Unless someone comes up with a plan and makes a serious effort to address these issues, all the insurance or Medicare-for-all schemes will not succeed. The alternative would be for the government to fix a price on everything and see how many drug companies continue to innovate, how many doctors stay in business and how many students chose to get a medical degree.

But politicians will continue to promise the easy non-solution to give the appearance that they care about fixing the problem.

Flashback – Hating the Rich

2020-12-11T07:00:00.062-08:00

Millionaires, billionaires and highly paid executives are favorite targets for someone trying to garner support for a new program. We should hate the rich merely because they are rich. The government should take away their money to help the poor. In this stirred-up state of envy no one wants to think about how the anger is selective. Nor do they want to hear how such a move would dampen motivation at all levels while not really solving any problems.

I pointed this out right before the 2016 election, and nothing has changed since then:

[Maybe hating is too strong a word for it. Maybe being angry or envious is a better description of those feelings, the feelings various politicians and organizations vigorously promote. But since those same organizations and advocacy groups freely use the words “hate” and “haters,” it’s probably not completely unfair. In this case the hating is not only selective, but also difficult to justify.

Here is a graphic that has been going around on social media. It shows the total compensation of health insurance company CEOs. The caption and comments imply that this is the reason for the sharp increase in Obamacare (ACA) premiums for 2017. Let’s take one example and see what’s going on.

Let's not quibble over the fact that the information is three years old or that they calculate daily pay based on 341 days in a year. If these folks have moved on, they were likely replaced by others who were equally well compensated. Instead take the first gentleman, Joseph Swedish as representative.

He is the CEO of WellPoint, which operates Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in 14 states. Here is some information from a CNBC report from 2014. “The company had 37.5 million members at the end of the quarter, up 2 million members from a year earlier.” Apparently he is doing a good job of growing the company and meeting analysts’ expectations. But is his pay driving up premiums?

Take the $17 million shown above and divide by the number of customers, 37.5 million, and get 45 cents per customer. Divide that by 12 to calculate the effect on monthly premiums and we find that if he were paid nothing, each customer might see a 3.8-cent reduction in monthly premiums – 3.8 cents! (By saving this up for 10 years each customer could afford one trip to Starbucks.)

Maybe it’s the fact that the government forces us to buy health insurance that causes such a negative opinion of these CEOs. By contrast, we never seem to get upset about the amount paid to the Disney CEO or star athletes. We never hear people complaining that the ticket prices would be lower if their favorite quarterback made less money. We give these people our money freely, even line up to do it, in return for a limited amount of entertainment, and they also get rich.

Look at the recent Desert Trip concert in Palm Springs. Most of the 75,000 tickets were gone in less than five hours, with the good seats going for $1599 each. The promoter is expected to gross $160 million for the three-day event, while paying the headliners up to $7 million each (for showing up and playing for a few hours). The LA Times reports that these rock stars from the sixties continue to do very well for themselves. “Since 2000, the Rolling Stones have grossed more than $1.1 billion with their periodic tours, according to Pollstar, the concert-industry-tracking publication. [Paul] McCartney has racked up $761 million, [Pink Floyd’s Roger] Waters has pulled in $592 million, followed by [Bob] Dylan ($293 million), the Who ($200 million) and [Neil] Young ($153 million).”

We love to hate those one-percenters, the people making a lot more money than we do, but the outrage is selective. When it’s Mick Jagger, Bob Dylan, Lady Gaga, Peyton Manning, Rory McIlroy, George Clooney, Tom Cruise, or Oprah, then it’s OK. Making almost $50,000 a day is very impressive, but it pales in comparison to $500,000 - $750,000 for a single speech or an advance on a book in the millions. We love the ones who perform for us and hate the ones who help us pay our doctor bills. Objections to the rich being rich are both selective and difficult to justify.]

The Power of Numbers to Deceive

2020-12-07T07:00:00.067-08:00

Large numbers are impressive, so people often fail to put them into perspective. That’s why advertisers and advocates love to use them to get more sales or to garner support for a cause. Examples pop up daily, especially in this age of COVID-19.

Every day the local and national news media blast out the latest coronavirus totals. Millions of cases and over one quarter million deaths get our attention. In fact, relative to other causes they are very big numbers. It is a serious problem, but no one reminds us that 15 million is less than five percent of the population. Furthermore, I have never heard a news organization report on the number of people who have recovered. It’s sure to also be in the millions. It seems that people come out on two extremes: they either don’t take it seriously enough or they are unnecessarily terrified of catching it and dying. Perhaps if the news gave a more honest, measured account, more people would have an appropriately moderate reaction.

I found another example in a health report. “The Federal Trade Commission is sending 70,142 checks and PayPal payments totaling $3,864,824 to consumers nationwide who bought Quell, a wearable device that supposedly would treat chronic pain throughout the body when placed below the knee.” The company was fined almost $4 million for misrepresenting their product! Consumers who were gullible enough to buy the product will be reimbursed. That’s about $55.10 each for a device that is advertised on sale for $99 – not exactly a money-back guarantee – but the $4 million fine seems impressive.

Class action lawsuits are also typical. Chipotle, accused of falsely advertising its food as GMO-free, settled for $6.5 million. After the lawyers took 30%, that left their customers with a claim of $2 per meal with a cap of $30 per household, but it “could be less than this depending on how many claims are made.” Again a big number reduced to peanuts per person.

Similarly Johnson & Johnson, a favorite target for lawsuits, was ordered to Pay $6.3 million in the Infant’s Tylenol Settlement. That came out to $2.15 a bottle.

The number of home burglaries in 2018 was 685,766, about half of total burglaries (1,230,149), and about half of those happened when people didn’t lock their doors. But when buying a home security system you will hear, “A burglary happens once every 26 seconds.”

When big numbers are spread across many people, it doesn’t add up to very much.

In some cases, the news media implies big numbers just in their tone. A couple of years ago they wanted us to believe that school shootings were common, but what happened to school shooting news when the presidential campaigns got into full swing? The problem didn’t go away, but the news did.

According to Education Week, twenty-five incidents occurred on school grounds or during school-sponsored events resulting in five student deaths, only one under the age of 14. Any such deaths are tragic, but that’s five out of 56.4 million students. Should anyone panic over such minuscule probability?

Headlines about these extremely rare events like shark attacks are easy to ignore, but when kids are involved, it’s different. Parents are terrified at the prospect of their child being abducted. Nosey neighbors report them for letting kids walk alone and authorities respond. An elementary school in South Carolina won’t let the kids whose mother wants them to walk home, leave school without an adult. “Today, only 10% of American kids walk to school, down from about 50% in 1969.”

Reuters tries to assure parents: “Kidnapped children make headlines, but abduction is rare….On average, fewer than 350 people under the age of 21 have been abducted by strangers in the United States per year since 2010.” Then Parents.com tells them, “Every 40 seconds in the United States, a child becomes missing or is abducted.” But they don't tell them that 0.1% are abducted by strangers, over 95% simply ran away and 99.8% are later found alive.

It’s an endless battle against the media, politicians and charities selling products or ideas and raising funds using big numbers. The best defense is perspective.

Flashback – Need for Speed

2020-12-04T07:00:00.051-08:00

It is no wonder that anxiety and depression are increasing as a combination of constant bad news, the threat of the coronavirus and political tensions are compounded by the breathless urgency of the media’s presentations. Everything is top priority, and everyone is fighting to be the first to tell their version of every story. No one can wait until tomorrow for a more thorough or accurate story, because by tomorrow there will be a new crisis.

Almost nine years ago I warned of this trend:

[It's Monday morning and I find a news story about a news story. The news of Whitney Houston’s death was on Twitter 27 minutes before the mainstream media broke the story. A whole 27 minutes! That’s unbelievable! How could people be kept waiting so long? Shouldn’t there be some kind of law to prevent such unconscionable delays in communicating these life-changing events?

Of course I’m being sarcastic. It is rather amazing that Twitter has such a web of interconnections. The article goes on to cite statistics about the number of tweets and retweets, suggesting that Twitter may become the new source of breaking news. (The power of the social media is the power we give it.)

My question is: What’s the hurry? Why the urgency? It’s too bad Whitney Houston died. It’s too bad she had all those personal problems. She was a great entertainer, admired by many. But what’s the big deal about finding out 27 minutes later?

First, we have been conditioned to expect “breaking news” as soon as it happens – even news that does not affect us directly. Television and the Internet compete for our attention, and the way to get it seems to be to promise instant gratification for our news craving. Details can be filled in later, but the important thing, we are told, is to find out about it now. As implied by a series of recent smartphone ads, if you are the last to know, you are considered some kind of loser. It’s cool to be able to respond that you already got the word.

Another part of the problem is that people place too much importance on the roles of entertainers. They spend so much time, money and emotional energy following the output of their favorite performer, group or team that they consider them close friends. Stars can’t go out in public without people hassling them for autographs or selfies. Stars want privacy while fans demand their attention.

This behavior, the importance we place both on celebrity and on instant news, is a symptom of a lack of perspective in our society that leads to problems elsewhere in our lives, poor decisions and misplaced priorities.

When my father died, my brother called to give me the news so that I could make travel arrangements to attend the funeral. This news was important and personal to me, but if I had gotten it 27 minutes later, it would have made no difference at all.]

Pet “Owners” Beware!

2020-11-30T07:00:00.097-08:00

Last Friday’s Flashback explained how everyone gets upset when corporations and interest groups employ lobbyists to influence legislation, yet everyone is usually silent or supportive of protests and movements with the similar intentions, especially when they focus on the rights of the underprivileged or oppressed -- even if they are not human.

Politicians cater to these movements, as businesses try to garner favor by caving to their demands. Both worry less about the small percentage with the issue than with their champions who latch on to the cause to show everyone else how compassionate and virtuous they are. Hence, tiny minorities exert disproportionate political and economic pressure.

This dynamic comes up everywhere: in sports, fast food restaurants and grocery stores. They can’t say some things, and the things they sell must have favorable labels. Few have the guts to stand up to the pressure. A friend related that her church lists inclusiveness in their mission statement, but that was not good enough. They must also have a welcoming statement as a supplement to it – apparently you can never be inclusive enough!

Some consider themselves “woke” by giving these movements credibility, while others wrongly shrug them off. They gradually creep into society almost unnoticed while we nap!

In light of this, an article from the Guardian addresses a potential trend that should distress many. The headline runs: “Should we stop keeping pets? Why more and more ethicists say yes.”

The suggestion that keeping pets is somehow immoral is backed by a mixture of both rational and emotional arguments. First they state, “recent research into animals’ emotional lives has cast doubt on the ethics of petkeeping.” The author of a 2015 book, Run, Spot, Run, argues against pet ownership in that it “denies animals the right of self-determination. Ultimately, we bring them into our lives because we want them, then we dictate what they eat, where they live, how they behave, how they look, even whether they get to keep their sex organs.” When people tire of their pets or can’t afford them, they simply drop them at a shelter or abandon them. Experts in the new field of anthrozoology argue that this is all a form of cruelty.

When people think of their pet as part of their family – and it’s getting increasingly common to hear neighbors and advertisers use terms like “furry children” or “pet parents” – it further raises moral and ethical questions. “The logical consequence is that the more we attribute them with these characteristics, the less right we have to control every single aspect of their lives,” say the experts.

Meanwhile, animal advocacy groups are working to change the term owner to guardian in places like Boulder City, CO, San Francisco and Marin County, CA, Rhode Island and other places around the world. This simple change may have both ethical and legal ramifications.

Institutions accused of exploiting animals, such as the circus, have come under fire. Animal rights activists claimed victory when Ringling Bros Circus closed. Now the pressure shifts to calls to end, or at least rethink, zoos.

A related trend is the switch to vegetarian and vegan diets, not only for health reasons, but for ethical reasons as well. “Veganism is up over 300% in the past 15 years” to almost 10 million in the US. What pressure will come from these groups? Will they be the first to go pet-free for ethical reasons and then begin a campaign to get the rest to follow?

Finally, claims that keeping pets is healthy are also under attack. A Finnish study of over 21,000 found cholesterol issues, other cardiovascular health problems and BMI problems associated with pet ownership. “Depression, panic attacks, migraine, and rheumatoid arthritis were more often associated with pet ownership among women. The associations of somatic diseases with pet ownership were more common among aging people, whereas psychiatric symptoms and diseases were more apparent among young people.”

Although two-thirds of American households have pets, mostly dogs, cats or fish, be alert for pleas about domination and cruelty, that they are sentient beings with more rights to freedom than the average household can provide. These new norms don’t just happen; they evolve, little by little, creeping into society. And it only takes a small minority with powerful PR to start the ball rolling. (Who would have thought 20 years ago that there would be controversy about listing only M or F on a driver’s license?)

Flashback – A Different Kind of Lobbying

2020-11-27T07:00:00.182-08:00

This 2016 entry was prescient, especially in light of current events with so many organizations caving to the dictates of various activists and pressure groups. A small number of those actually aggrieved pick up support from followers motivated by a need to feel relevant and morally superior. With these dupes in tow, tiny minorities exert disproportionate political and economic pressure.

Here are the thoughts from four years ago:

[Political lobbyists are the target of a lot of disapproval, and deservedly so. Big corporations, unions and interest groups pay them to persuade lawmakers to pass laws or propose regulations that favor them. They contend that these activities keep lawmakers informed on the subtleties of certain industries to reduce the number of unintended consequences, because Congress cannot be experts on everything.

On the other hand, most of the population has the impression that these meetings and lunches are little more than legalized bribes for the rich to disproportionately influence government, an attempt to bring “government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.” The auto industry and banks get their bailouts. The military is given weapons they haven’t requested and don’t want. In short, to lobby is to try to get your way without regard to what others want or what is best for the country.

But there are other activities almost the same as lobbying that most people either ignore or consider healthy. This came to mind when I saw a news story from England, but the type of behavior is certainly not foreign to Americans. In fact it’s quite common.

The controversy arose over the new five-pound note. When vegans and vegetarians discovered that the new tougher and more waterproof bill was made from a plastic polymer containing small amounts of tallow, derived from animal waste products, they took to social media demanding a change. They called the use of even a small amount of animal products disgusting. Their rights were being trampled. Since they were not going to eat the pocket money and the contents were by-products of a food production process, stuff that would be thrown away, it’s hard to see how any harm was done. It’s not like more animals were being slaughtered. Yet some circulated a petition, gathering over 40,000 signatures, demanding that the contents be changed.

It’s so easy to click a box or sign an online petition. And you get to feel good about yourself for caring about an issue that’s important to a minority. You get to stick up for the underdogs, the victims, people whose beliefs were not considered when the government tried to make their paper money more durable. But 40,000 signatures represent less than one-tenth of one percent of the UK population and only about 3% report being vegetarian. Does this make a difference?

This behavior is repeated nearly daily in America. People will protest slights against groups they aren’t members of. The protests are based on the theory that if they can get a large enough turnout and enough press coverage, they can influence national, state and local policy. The lure is the same – be a savior, do the noble thing, occupy the moral high ground; feel good about yourself for defending the rights of the victims and the marginalized, even if those rights never existed before and in some cases where the victims aren’t even human. That’s how they get huge, vocal crowds or thousands of signatures when the issues affect only a few. (What's worse, the claims are often based on bad science, a warped understanding of history or emotional appeals.)

We have seen this mindset recently protesting a pipeline in North Dakota, defending a mountain lion that was killing cattle in California, supporting workers who took on obligations without the necessary financial resources and solving a bathroom problem that few knew existed. This is all about pressure on lawmakers. Adults throw a group tantrum to get attention.

It’s also so easy to vote, as the people in Massachusetts did to require that chickens and pigs live in larger cages. Those in favor of happier chickens spent almost $5 million on small demonstrations and other means to publicize the animals' need for more comfortable accommodations. Those arguing that such changes would raise the prices of eggs and bacon, hitting the poor especially hard, could only raise $300,000 to try to make their point. The chickens won and the humans lost, because the emotional appeal of reducing what was portrayed as suffering for the animals drowned out the appeal of helping the poor afford food. So voters went home from the polls feeling smug about making a difference.

Some of these causes are worthy of attention; many are trivial. But it's exactly the same outcome as traditional lobbying. Based on the theories that past behavior predicts future behavior and that behavior rewarded is behavior repeated, I predict that the future will yield more of this free lobbying. Lawmakers will feel pressure from all sides, as every special interest exerts as much pressure as they can, if not through monetary donations, then by demonstrating in the streets and on social media. Those groups always attract supporters with the promise of feeling fulfilled, compassionate and morally superior.

Is this different kind of lobbying any healthier for the country than the first? We will see.]

That was my feeling in 2016. It has (as I predicted) escalated as activities in Seattle, Minneapolis, Kenosha, Portland, Washington DC and elsewhere are portrayed as peaceful protests despite vandalism, looting and rioting. But beware that the latest protests may mimic a more sinister movement.

Consider this news from the UK: A British-Indian Muslim convert, skipped bail in 2014 to join ISIS in Syria. He wrote later online: “When we descend on the streets of London, Paris and Washington the taste will be far bitterer, because not only will we spill your blood, but we will also demolish your statues, erase your history and, most painfully, convert your children who will then go on to champion our name and curse their forefathers.”

Manifesting, Really?

2020-11-23T07:00:00.059-08:00

About 40 years ago a consultant descended on the company where I was working to meet with all employees (who later magically became associates) to introduce them to the power of what he called “visioning.” According to him, visioning was the key to achieving your goals in life and at work. He had convinced the executive team that harnessing such power would thrust the company forward.

Participants need only form a strong vision in their minds and things would turn out favorably. If it didn’t work you weren’t doing it right. As would be expected, employees dutifully attended training, and then returned to their desks to do their jobs in the usual way. Like most business fads, it quickly faded. The only benefit was that someone caught daydreaming could plead visioning as a defense.

Until recently, I assumed that fad had died – but no! It merely got rebranded and now is being sold to individuals as manifesting.

I found the details on this site from August 2019, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Manifesting.”

“Manifesting is cultivating the experience of what it is that you want to feel — and then living and believing in that experience so that you can allow it to come into form.” It can be used to “attract whatever you want, whether that’s a successful business, good health, a relationship or even a material object.” There’s no limit to the power of manifesting as long as you align with the loving energy of the universe. (It sounds a lot like praying that Notre Dame will win the football game.)

It is further defined as “the process of vibrating at a high frequency so that you become a vibrational match with the Universe and can co-create your world.”

According to the site’s own survey, a vast majority are confused about how to do it right. (Maybe they’re wondering why it’s taking so long for their dreams to come true when they are concentrating/vibrating so hard.)

But then come the disclaimers. Practitioners err in thinking that exactly what they want should magically appear. It doesn’t work that way because the Universe is wiser and may have different plans. You may sometimes get what you want, but you don’t have total control.

Even though it may initially sound loony and airy-fairy, there are some positive messages. The video on the site emphasizes focusing more on what you have that’s working, being grateful, instead of stressing about what you don’t have or how long it is taking. This is a good message, which I call perspective and have written about here about 150 times.

That’s followed by more good advice about not trying to force or control everything. Don’t sweat the small stuff, be aware of your financial situation and be in control your feelings.

When I first read all this alignment with the vibrations of the Universe stuff, it seemed laughable. But deeper down it looks more like a religion for the non-religious: “We can trust that an energy beyond our own is working on our behalf and that everything is working out for us — even if we don’t know exactly when or how it will happen.” Readers were advised to be patient and practice manifesting not just on special occasions but every day, the same advice you would hear about prayer in any church, temple or mosque.

The problem is that some people are selling this as a standalone, magic solution to all life’s problems, while the part about taking responsibility is easily overlooked. You can’t just sit down and wish things into existence. The Lord does help those who help themselves.

Flashback – Rights

2020-11-20T07:00:00.065-08:00

Here are some ideas about our constitutional rights from an entry four years ago. The same problematic behaviors have been even more evident since then.

[Thinking about how people behave toward the rights of others lately can become very confusing.

About six weeks ago leading up to the [2016] election, there was quite a bit of talk about exercising your right to vote. Public service ads appeared on TV about how important it was to vote and how your vote made a difference. As is usually the case around election time, some volunteers worked with car pools and vans to make sure all voters were able to get to the polls. Some continued to subscribe to the argument that requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls was a burden and discriminatory. In short, many people came together in an effort to make it as easy as possible for everyone interested to exercise their right to vote.

We also have a right to bear arms, yet I have seen no efforts to make it as easy as possible to buy a gun. In fact the opposite is true. Exercising this right is burdened by several requirements: background check, waiting period, etc. Where are the people who will drive me to the gun show or the firing range if I have trouble getting there on my own? – The idea of this seems silly. There aren’t television ads encouraging people to exercise this right, and most comments are to the contrary. Two rights receive opposite reactions.

We also have a right to trial by jury and to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be a right everyone is in favor of for themselves, but objects to for others. If law enforcement or courts do not do what citizens think they should have done, based on knowledge of the case picked up from the news or social media, the protesters begin demanding “justice.” Sometimes they even ignore the crime victim’s or their family’s pleas for calm and patience as the process plays out.

We also have a right to free speech. Supposedly you can say what you want to without repercussions, particularly from the government. But students at various universities protest against the appearance of outside speakers because what they say may be offensive or not correspond with their worldview. Students are supposedly in college to learn. Sometimes their ideas are wrong, and sometimes it’s just educational to understand another’s point of view. Instead, they protest demanding a cancellation of the event, or they attend to heckle the speaker already having made up their minds that the person is evil or offensive. When confronted with the idea of freedom of speech, they smugly argue that the First Amendment only applies to government interference.

It has gotten to the point where a few universities have adopted the Chicago Principle, originated at the University of Chicago. It holds that if the speech or written statement is legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, it must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. This action tries to move the focus from some vague notion of offense or anticipated offense to one of learning.

And it’s not just students. Society bans the use of certain words by certain people, and they can only refer to them by their initials, even when discussing the word itself. Many people feel they must consider their word choice very carefully for fear of committing an inadvertent offense or micro-aggression. If you refer to America as a melting pot, you are demeaning someone’s heritage and traditions. If you refer to our Forefathers, you are subjugating half the population. And on it goes. Political rallies have become scenes of name-calling and accusations rather than of debate and the post-rally walk to the car features fighting in the streets.

Critical thinking leads to the conclusion that we don’t treat rights the same. Some are encouraged, some defended, some ignored, some opposed and some applied selectively. Isn’t that worth considering?]

Some Short Examples and Comments About the Five Dimensions

2020-11-16T07:00:00.063-08:00

Critical thinking: A few weeks ago a furniture company was advertising 20% off or 0% interest until Jan 2024, which was about 40 months away. If you take the delayed payment offer and pay full price, you sacrifice the 20%-off bargain. That is the equivalent of paying over 5% in annual interest – not exactly a no interest deal after all.

Responsibility: It seems fine to harass, shame or even arrest people who don’t wear a face covering, yet in the case of a person who has children without the means to support or feed them, there is unlimited sympathy and generous financial support from the government and others.

Economic Understanding: Recently Subway lost a court case in Ireland. They tried to avoid paying tax on their bread, but the court ruled that their bread contains too much sugar to qualify for the “staple food” exemption. The media reported mockingly on the unhealthiness of Subway bread.

One newscaster closed with “now it will cost Subway more” – wrong! It is really a hidden tax on the Irish Subway customers as they pay more for their sandwiches. I doubt if it will cost Subway any business as they raise the price a bit. Newscasters and most of the people who listen to them don’t understand economics or business.

Note: A recipe on Food.com for homemade white bread uses at least as much sugar as the Subway recipe.

Perspective: Does anyone else find it odd that football players celebrate every time they make a good play? These people are highly paid to play a game. They are expected to throw the ball or catch it or tackle an opponent or keep him from catching the ball. When they do what they are paid to do, they make first down signals, high-five each other, do dances and mug for the camera. Try doing that in your job and see where it gets you!

Discipline: Consider those on-line sports betting ads. It’s initially risk-free as they promise to match your losses up to a certain dollar amount. Aren’t they counting on enough people getting hooked, even if it’s only a bet or two a week? As the saying goes, over the long run the house always wins.

Here is some evidence of that. This source “estimates that New Yorkers bet $837 million on sports in New Jersey. When subtracting the payouts for wins using a conservative hold percentage, it’s an estimated $57.1 million in revenue for the operators and $6.2 million in tax revenue lost by New York to New Jersey.” With it not yet legal in New York, total losses to the state in taxes on the profits could be over $203 million.

Discipline (alternate): Despite being told for years to build a six-month emergency fund, most Americans were dependent on government enhanced unemployment and stimulus checks immediately after the pandemic struck and complained when they were delayed.

Other miscellaneous ideas:

Three useless words – “go ahead and.” Every time you hear them “go ahead and” replay the sentence in your head with out them. It’s shorter and means exactly the same thing!

The only way to be an optimist these days is to have extremely low expectations.

“Some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War.” (Source: Article by Henry Louis Gates, a black historian)

Flashback – Does Luck Have a Half-life?

2020-11-13T07:00:00.072-08:00

This takes us back almost seven years to the minimum wage protests at fast food restaurants. The question is whether people learn to change behavior when they are bailed out from predictable consequences. I have long argued that the reason you can’t raise a family on the minimum wage is that no one should start a family if they can only get a minimum wage job. Bad luck is not forever.

People who caught a bad break certainly should be helped, but behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Irresponsibility rewarded breeds more. Over the past seven years a lot of irresponsibility has been rewarded. Here are my 2013 comments:

[More protests are breaking out around the plight of fast food workers unable to survive on the minimum wage. They are demanding a wage increase to $15 an hour. The news has presented the arguments pro and con, but have usually given more time to the protesters, sometimes, as in this CBS piece, picking out one as a kind of “poster child” for the cause. The hidden problem is that minimum wage, unemployment extensions, food stamps and other proposed government solutions ignore behavioral factors.

A primary argument in favor of this issue tells us that all these people are less fortunate, that they need a helping hand to get back on their feet, that "there, but for the grace of God,” go we. They completely ignore well-known wisdom that behavior has consequences. We are presented with the argument that every one of these fast food workers is merely down on his luck or a victim of a bad economy, and that the situation has nothing to do with consequences of behavior. This unbelievable scenario is widely accepted by otherwise rational people. The media and many politicians never challenge it.

This leads to an interesting comparison: In other circumstances, how do caring people really act? If your teenage son sits on the sofa all day playing videogames, ignoring homework and refusing to do his chores, do good parents excuse the behavior and cover for him? Do they pass it off with, “That’s OK; he’s going through a tough time”? Even non-parents know the answer. Good parents will institute consequences for this poor behavior, knowing that if they don’t, life and reality will later institute much harsher consequences. Teenage sons can be very difficult, but good parents anticipate with a pattern of similar, consistent reactions to deal with natural childhood resistance and laxness. That’s how caring people act. They don’t always come to the rescue – behavior that makes the rescuer feel powerful, but often causes long-term harm to the one rescued. When the bad situation is a bad break, sympathy and a leg up are appropriate. If the son is mugged and loses money, parents may reimburse him for the loss. If he loses it gambling, that’s the consequence of bad behavior. Bailing him out is inappropriate, dulls the impact of the consequence and no learning occurs. (For an extreme example see the recent case of "affluenza" in Texas.)

Returning to the case of minimum wage employees, especially those presented by the media and never challenged, we must ask if it was bad luck or consequences that contributed to the situation. If it’s luck, then some temporary help is appropriate, because bad luck does have a kind of half-life or statute of limitations. A little help can turn things around, but caring people do not bail out from consequences. That only fosters more problematic behavior.

Even in these seemingly innocent human-interest stories the determination requires only a few simple questions. Where did those two or three children come from? Where is the father (or fathers)? What contribution is he making? If none, why not? Did the workers finish high school; were drugs ever involved; are they applying for better jobs, are they looking for ways to increase skills, etc., etc.? What is the long-term plan, if any? (CBS later reported that their "poster-child" example turned down promotions more than once because it didn’t fit her preferred personal schedule. Another news story told of a kind social worker repairing at minimum cost the car of a woman who hasn't been able to work in 5 years due to a neck injury. She can't work, but she can drive?!)

Looking at the situation through the behavioral lens would probably determine that many of these people are not victims. Many are living with the consequences of earlier choices. Should caring people run to bail them out, labeling them all as “less fortunate,” as the compassionistas would have us believe? Not only do they not learn and grow, but the next generation, poised to make the same mistakes, sees no example to discourage them from following the same path. So, the current, non-behavioral approaches, which lump them all into the same category, lead not to solutions but to perpetual problems.]

Libraries As Socialism

2020-11-09T07:00:00.013-08:00

I have from time to time heard defenders of socialism use the local library as an example of socialism in practice. The building, utilities, workers and books are paid for mostly by taxes (with some additional funds from books sales and donations).

Who can say anything bad about the library? It’s available and it’s free. In fact my library’s computer reminds me at checkout how much I have saved by not having to buy the books.

I am a supporter and big user of my library system. Sometimes I go to the library without anything particular in mind just to pick out an interesting book to read. Sometimes I go with a particular subject in mind and browse through the available books in that section of the stacks. I usually come away with something and never have to pay. (The same can be said of movies on DVD or music, but with everyone streaming, that part of their business has probably fallen off.)

Sometimes, however, I am looking for a particular title that I’ve seen on TV or seen a reference to in my reading. I check the website and the library doesn’t have it. Somebody in charge of ordering books either was not familiar with it or didn’t feel that it should make the cut for what they spend their limited funds on. I have very little control over this centralized decision.

Sometimes when checking the website I do find the book I want, but someone else has it checked out. The computer tells me how many copies they have in the system and where I am on the waiting list should I decide to put the book on hold. I have waited as long as 8 weeks, occasionally longer, for notification that the book is available. I am given 5 days to pick it up during the 60 hours of the week they are open (prior to the shortened COVID hours). Most of those hours are when people are working and kids are in school.

I put up with these inconveniences because getting a particular book to read is not urgent or important to me. The library is fine, but it has its limitations. I can bypass these limitations using available alternatives.

If I really need the book I go the capitalist route – Amazon, for example. I can find almost any book or movie I want on the Internet. I can buy it and download it directly to my phone and begin reading. If the system is working properly, the number of copies available is driven by demand from myself and others rather than by some individual’s taste or guesswork. I can do this 24 hours a day; I never have to wait for another reader to finish and return it. I can mark it up if I choose and can take as long as I want to read it. Because it’s mine, I have that freedom.

Where other services are concerned, such inconveniences are no longer trivial. No one would want to put up with them in important areas like groceries, utilities, transportation, healthcare and many others.

Why do people in the UK or Canada sometimes have to wait longer for medical procedures? – Because their healthcare is run on the library model. Why do we hear stories of food shortages in places like Venezuela and the former Soviet Union? – Because the food supply is run on the library model. Some central decision maker, not individual consumers voting with their dollars, controls the system. Why does public education in America lag behind so many other countries? – Because as parents become more and more disengaged, it moves closer to the library model where central decision makers dictate methods and judge outcomes.

Most areas run by the government or where the government gets involved are the the epitome of inefficiency: student loans, home mortgages, the court system, the DMV, the post office, Amtrak, and public education (where teachers keep asking to be paid more to teach fewer students with questionable results).

Healthcare in America is already too much like the library model. There is no real competition, and the consumer is separated from the provider by an insurance middleman. So everyone rightly complains about it.

I love libraries, but I wouldn’t want to depend on them or anything like them for the necessities of life.

Flashback – Critical Thinking

2020-11-06T07:00:00.075-08:00

The idea behind the flashbacks on Fridays is to review and update some thoughts and examples from the past. These examples remain valid because behavior has changed very little over the years. We are not learning from our mistakes.

The main difference in 2020 is that almost every subject quickly becomes political with people taking sides. The Real Solutions are not political. They come from people changing their personal consequences by improved choices using the Five Dimensions. As these individual improvements accumulate, America moves in the right direction. The solutions come from us and not from the government, but try telling someone that in an election year!

Here from almost nine years ago are some thoughts on critical thinking.

[Around the time of the Civil War, John Stuart Mill wrote essays in opposition to slavery and in favor of women’s rights. In both cases he recognized the difficulty of persuading people to change their minds when their conviction was based on feelings rather than logic – thinking with their hearts instead of their brains. Near the beginning of “The Subjection of Women” he writes: “So long as opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses instability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, … the more persuaded adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, … always throwing up fresh entrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old.” In other words, it’s tough to get people to change their mind when their opinion is not based on logic. The more you talk, the deeper they dig in to protect long-held beliefs.

We see this behavior almost daily. We are warned to avoid subjects of religion and politics in social conversations. They lead to no resolution, instead causing others to protect their turf.

This is why many of my critical thinking arguments will fall on deaf ears. Considering, though, the waste, misdirection and sometimes danger that result from individual and societal forays down these blind alleys of feeling-based decisions, I continue.

There are two categories of critical thinking. The first involves paying closer attention, for example, recognizing the popular advertising pitch of “save up to 50% or more” as virtually meaningless. Literally it means: maybe saving some undefined amount that can be less or more than 50%. Likewise, how can all car insurance companies save you (up to) $300 when you switch? They all say so. One even claims that 80% of those who switched saved money - but doesn't mention the 20% dumb enough to switch anyway. These examples, and many others, just take some basic questioning.

The second category hits on subjects treated almost as religious beliefs. When I warn of the dangers of dietary supplements, the ineffectiveness of performance bracelets, or that all-natural does not necessarily mean healthier, I know there are a certain number of readers who will dig in, ignoring examples, evidence and explanations, knowing in their hearts that they are doing the right thing, resisting rather than even considering an alternative point of view. For some the ideas of green and sustainable are nearly sacred. They will not bat an eye when told that a particular wind turbine, for example, saves enough coal-powered energy to pay for itself in 150 years, but has a life expectancy of only 50 years! “But, but, but it’s green! It must be good. It’s the direction we need to be moving!” Logic is lost in feelings and further argument leads only to increased resistance.

Nevertheless, I will continue to cite examples and drive the message of critical thinking. Making good decisions most of the time is essential for our success, both as individuals and as a society.]

Why Do They Bother?

2020-11-02T07:00:00.015-08:00

I often wonder about news agencies. They publish flashy headlines, but the details later in the stories turn out to be much less interesting or conclusive. Here is a recent example from CNN health: “People with blood type O may have lower risk of Covid-19 infection and severe illness, two new studies suggest.” (At least citing two studies is better than their frequent practice of citing one unnamed source in their political news, but let's get into it.)

The studies concluded, “People with blood type O may be less vulnerable to Covid-19 and have a reduced likelihood of getting severely ill.” To compound the weakness of this conclusion that they “may be less vulnerable” they add a disclaimer that “Experts say more research is needed.”

What we know so far, provided we read the headline carefully, is that something “may be” going on, and even if true, the connection is not clear.

A study from Denmark found that of a sample of 7,422 people who tested positive, 38.4% were blood type O, whereas 41.7% of a separate non-tested group of the 2.2 million Danish people has that blood type. The article doesn’t explain where that 2.2 million came from. The population of Denmark is about 5.8 million. Were those 2.2 million representative of the entire population?

It is likely the results were statistically significant or they would not have been published. Still, statistical significance is overrated, and the difference between 41.7% and 38.4% does not seem to be of any practical significance to a CNN audience.

The difference for Danes with type A blood goes in the opposite direction, 44.4% ill compared to 42.4% of the population. But the Type O and Type A does not account for everyone, only 84.1%. The remaining type B and AB people must comprise 15.9% of the population and account for 17.2% of the cases, which is actually proportionally higher than the type A cases. Why they reported what they did, the way they did, is puzzling.

The second, a Canadian study, looked at a much smaller sample, only 95 critically ill patients. Of them, 84% of those with blood type A or AB required ventilators compared to 61% of type O or B. They didn’t make the same comparisons under the same conditions as the Danish study. The only common finding was the better performance of blood type O.

The final conclusion of the CNN article is that no one should worry and no one should become complacent. Blood type does not supersede other risk factors. The information is useful only to researchers in this narrow field of trying to discover a link between blood type and COVID susceptibility or seriousness. They “don't yet know what mechanism could explain the link” or if a link exists.

The fact that they were published in a journal called Blood Advances reinforces how narrow the focus for the studies was. It wasn’t really intended for the general public. Which brings me back to my original question. Why do they bother?

Not to pick on CNN. The same useless information appeared in Forbes, NBC, UPI Health News, Science Focus and others. The pressure to fill airtime and Internet space must be overwhelming. We get such news with its exciting headlines whether it adds any value to our daily lives or not.