Technoglot

Leading, and loaded, questions: And other ways to bias questions and polls.

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 14:49:00 +0000

“When did you stop beating your spouse?” Ludicrous, but such questions happen. By phrasing the question such that some type of foundational axiom is assumed, you bias the situation and make it very difficult for the person to answer. In a poll, the answer, “I have never beat my spouse” is highly unlikely to be part of the limited choice of answers. In a direct interview, it is easy to edit the situation to make the reader or viewer assume that there is some basis for the question. A firm denial may make the responder sound defensive. Perhaps the best response, in a verbal exchange, would be to invoke humor — respond with “that’s the question I was planning to ask you!”.

Such questions can be called leading questions, loaded questions, presupposition, or begging the question. In the court of US law, this situation of embedding an accusation within a question, is called “leading the witness”. The same thing can occur with inexperienced counselors and can be part of the process for implanting false memories.

Some additional leading questions examples (derived from Google searching):

“You enjoyed the movie, didn’t you?”
“How much do you love our new product?”
“Wouldn’t you agree that our service is the best in the industry?”
Any question that requires a “yes/no” response — that is not referring to factual data — is almost always leading. “Does 2 come after 1” is a factual question with a binary response. “Do you approve of Politician A’s desire to improve schools” is a question with two embedded biases — it states there is a politician’s desire that may, or may not, exist and it gives a vague directive that few would disagree with (“desire to improve schools”).

It is too easy to manipulate from either direction — the question or the responses.

Have you ever encountered a poll (or a test, for that matter) where you said “Where is option E”? For polls, that is often deliberate. For tests — well, they probably don’t do it deliberately but it is probably done because of too little, or too much, experience.

What is the color of the sky?
a) Red
b) Yellow
c) Blue
d) Green

The creator of the test PROBABLY meant the answer to be C (blue) but have you ever seen a sunset, or sunrise, that contained red, yellow, or orange? Very likely. It would have been better to rephrase the question to “What color is the sky, when not obscured by clouds, most of the time?” By the way, it is not unusual for the sky to appear green near tornadoes.

I have seen something very similar to the following in a poll. I found it amazing that anyone would not see it as just a way to implant false information — but, apparently, many don’t see it that way. Note that it misleads on BOTH the question and the response.

How do you feel about the Democrats’ open door policy for immigration?

a) I think it is wonderful
b) I think it is terrible
c) I think all Democrats should feel ashamed
d) The policy should be squelched immediately

Of course, Democrats have never had an “open door policy for immigration”. But the question indicates that they have had such a policy and, unfortunately, many people do not do any research on their own — so they believe it. Embedding lies within a question is a time-honored (though not honorable in any other way) method for politicians to mislead. There should be an “e” response:

e) I think the creator of this question should be seated at a blackboard and be required to write “I will not lie” 500 times.

I am sure that there are questions with embedded lies for other political party situations — but I have seen the above sent in an email. As mentioned in a recent newsletter, it is always dangerous to just believe what you read or have been told. Research, get multiple viewpoints and data sources. What you hear is NOT necessarily what exists. Polls can indirectly lead people to accept lies as truth, and a bad poll question can lead many a recipient astray.

Watch out.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Impeachment vs Conviction: People often seem to be confused as to what impeachment means. They use it as if it means conviction. It doesn't.

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Tue, 17 Mar 2026 14:27:22 +0000

Impeach this person, impeach that person, impeach them all. I listen and I am sympathetic about the general feelings that someone, or some group of people, have done something wrong. But, I still cringe because they don’t mean what they are saying and are apparently unaware of the fact.

What does it mean to impeach (or indict)?

To impeach a government employee is to ACCUSE them. For a non-government person, the process is to indict them. In each case, impeaching/indicting the person means that the body (House or District Attorney) feels that they have accumulated sufficient evidence of misdeeds that it should go to the next step — trial.

Impeachment is also a bit different from indictment as to what the misdeed may be. For a government official, they are supposed to have done something illegal/immoral that will impair their ability to do a good job in their governmental office. It is “more stringent” in that it doesn’t have to break a specific law but “less stringent” because it has to matter. If they were supposed to wipe their feet before entering the building but didn’t — even if shown to be true it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect their ability to do their job (it may drive the janitor nuts).

During an indictment, the District Attorney amasses evidence that they believe is adequate to prove the person did something illegal. If you drove through a red light but there was no other traffic around then you can STILL be prosecuted because you broke the law. (Admittedly, a jury MAY find you not guilty because they feel the penalty is excessive for the situation.)

In either case, all that has happened is that an accusation has been made and the person, or group, doing the accusing believes they have enough evidence to prove the accusation. We could go through and impeach every member of Congress and, if they did not go to trial, all could continue their daily routine without any hindrance. Just a check mark on their resumé.

The next steps.

Once this formal accusation is made, it is supposed to go to the next step — trial. For an impeachment, the trial is conducted by the Senate. For an indictment, the trial is held before a “jury of their peers”.

For an impeachment, 2/3 of the Senate must vote for conviction for the governmental official to be removed from office. This was set deliberately high to try to avoid purely personal removals. It has seemed to work for that.

George Washington hated, and warned against, the establishment of political parties — feeling that it might become a matter of “party before country”. And it seems to have gone that direction. So, now the 2/3 of the Senate needed to convict is more of a political party protection. The political party can be of greater importance than whether or not the official is guilty.

The trial of the Impeachment of BIll Clinton lasted five weeks. The voting was largely on party lines but ten of the 55 “not guilty” votes came from Republicans. This probably occurred because the articles of Impeachment did not meet the “must impair the ability to do their job” — perjury and adultery did not meet that criteria. The international community had a good laughing spell about the impeachment as they couldn’t see any reason a governmental group would impeach their leader for such offences.

The First Impeachment of Donald Trump was considered by the Senate for only two weeks. Voting was on a strict party line — with Republicans voting “not guilty” — though Mitt Romney did vote “guilty” on the abuse of power charge. Almost none of the evidence was publicly presented.

The trial for the Second impeachment of Donald Trump was only examined for five days, and most evidence was not even reviewed because it was recognized that a decision had been made prior to hearing the evidence. Still, of the 53 votes for “guilty”, seven came from the Republican party. It should be noted that, of the seven votes, six of those Senators were NOT going to be facing an election and, thus, did not have to be concerned about Party repercussions.

In a jury trial, all must agree on a guilty verdict. This reflects the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”. If one person feels they are not guilty then they are declared not guilty. There are situations where the trial hits a point where it is a mistrial and is done over but once a jury has reached a verdict, the same accusations cannot be brought to a jury again.

Summary

Impeachment == accusation. Conviction is needed before there are any consequences.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Travel Then and Now: We don't think much about it ... but travel has changed a lot over the decades, centuries, and millenia.

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:33:00 +0000

Once upon a time, about the only way people could travel was by putting one foot in front of the other. Oh, occasionally, they might fall into a river and grab hold of a log and hope to get off before the river led to some rocks or a waterfall. That may have been their encouragement to learn to swim. Oh, swimming, you say. How ordinary! But, even today, only about 44% of the human population know how to swim unassisted. (Most can float if they don’t panic.) Dreams of personal flying (without assistance) was a long held dream — but I think most have now decided to allow mechanical assistance.

Technical innovations

Humans are curious and good observers. A rolling log eventually got fashioned into a wheel, though there probably never was a stone wheel with a stick in the middle as you get from the comic “B.C.” or with a wooden axle as in the “Flintstones”. The log that they clung to in the river became hollowed out for more room, speed, and stability. People learned to use the wind with sails on boats, then for energy in windmills. Steam from a boiling vessel of water could push like the wind. So the power of wind was emulated with artificial “wind” in the form of steam. Eventually, people had many choices for movement — walk, swim, wheelchairs, hot air balloons, row boats, sailing boats, power boats, trains, automobiles, spaceships. Quite a journey through history.

Organizing for travel

Many methods of travel have been used — new ones developed and ways, still only dreams, that have yet to be developed. But being able to move is only a small part of travel. Daily travel has been, and still is, the most frequent reason for travel. Go out to the fields to work. Go to the savannah to hunt. Go out to sea to fish. Go to the local factory, or office, to work. General purpose containers such as pockets, purses, billfolds, backpacks, and tucker bags were created for carrying the needs for the hunt or the office.

Going farther, and for longer periods, was often a matter of income. People with little income would either just put their bag on their shoulder and move along — or, if it was a family, belongings would be loaded onto a mule or perhaps a cart. Carts were (and still are) pulled by dogs, horses, and humans — depending on resources.

Ah, but the higher income folks. If you’ve ever watched “Joe vs. the Volcano” (one of my favorites with Tom Hanks), you’ll see him go into a luggage store and come out with four huge steamer trunks — each big enough to serve as a room for a small child (I’m exaggerating a tiny bit). Upper class, royalty, the local “big wigs” relied on others to make themselves comfortable and move whatever they might think they “might” need on a voyage or at the other end of the travel. The various travels of Isabella L. Bird throughout the Americas and the Pacific are fascinating. She “roughed it” but she also had a lot of extra human labor assisting her.

Even today, you can occasionally spot a family with the very latest-fashion clothes with a MOUND of luggage queueing up at an airline counter to check their dozen suitcases and valises. I have yet to see them with the steamer trunks of yore but I will bet they still occur.

Borders

Ah, borders! Those artificial lines on the maps that indicate “ours” and “theirs”. It’s a concept that less complex societies don’t understand (because it doesn’t really make a lot of sense). It hasn’t been that long — perhaps only a couple hundred years (not sure exactly) — that people could just move around unimpeded. No passports, no rites of visas and papers of entry. Perhaps much of this fluidity arose from the fact that almost the only ones who traveled voluntarily were the rich. The poor more often were fleeing war, disease, floods, or some other reason why they just couldn’t stay at the place they were leaving. The poor usually didn’t do it willingly.

An exception was the pilgrim journeys. I am using the word “pilgrims” on the more generic level — people traveling to a sacred place for religious reasons — and NOT the more specific folk who arrived at Plymouth Rock in the Americas. No matter how they traveled — they did hope to return (healthily, if possible) back to their origination point. As part of their religious sense of duty, pilgrims often had very few possessions with them (possibly even gave their possessions away) and felt it made them more worthy if they suffered more.

Security

I have absolutely no idea — nor do I think there is a way for anyone to know — whether airline security makes us safer. I have a reasonable idea as to how it evolved. Humans (especially in the US) have a desire to “feel safe” in a world that doesn’t really care if we are safe. I can think of all kinds of ways to get around security measures (and have NO desire to try them) and I am sure that people who seriously want to get around them can figure out ways. We see these things in movies. Movies are not meant to be instruction manuals (usually) but they give sufficient hints for others to follow in the scriptwriters’ footprints if they so desired.

I do know that airline security makes air travel much less enjoyable for me. In our busy busy type-A society, however, we often have to do things the fastest way possible — and that is usually by air.

Once upon a time, when we didn’t have the large travel security infrastructure built up (it hasn’t been that many years), I booked a flight to Hawaii. But — silly me — I got the flight number and departure time reversed in my mind. I don’t really remember the precise numbers but the flight was something like 0205 and the departure time was 01:10. But I THOUGHT the departure time was 2:05pm. I got to the airport believing that I was still an hour early. The ticket agent laughed and told me to run for it. I did and I made it — because all I had to do was to arrive at the gate and show my ticket to the gate agent. This scenario may seem like a total fantasy to all of you who are under 50 years of age. But it was real and it was normal (except for the misreading of the flight information).

I am unwilling to pay for the comfort, and privilege, of not being treated like a sardine in a can. But, it is easy to understand the profit-motive for the airlines in configuring the planes in this way. The security requirements are just an additional overhead that one must SILENTLY (you dare not say a word about it while in the airport) anticipate and permit.

Summary

Each of us will make many journeys in our lives. Most have daily journeys. These may be to work or the grocery store or to our yoga class. We also have more serious journeys that may take days to complete and may be for stays of long duration. There are different ways to travel and different ways to take along that which we feel we might need. Some ways are faster and some are slower but we choose between trade-offs each time we travel.

I can imagine, however, a world of much easier travel — it wouldn’t be that hard.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

TAXES: Progressive versus Regressive versus Flat; among other matters

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 14:35:00 +0000

“The only things certain are death and taxes”. Just what are taxes and why are they present everywhere? As I wrote about in 2014, money is an abstraction of resources and energy. At the very foundation, the basis is about the things that you directly interact with — eat, drink, feel comfort, enjoy, and so forth. The larger the community, the more specialization that occurs and the more abstract money becomes.

So, what does all of this have to do with taxes? Taxes are allocations of resources/money for communal use. The rest of the resources/money is for personal use. ALL of it comes from the same pool of resources/money.

What is the Government Sector and How do Taxes Relate to it?

Taxes are collected by, or for, sections of the community that are collectively called “government”. We often think of government as those people “in charge” — whether they were put there by democratic vote or as an act of a group of oligarchs or as part of a drafted group of people or a group that overwhelmed and took over from the previous government. But government is divided up more for purpose than of particular titles or functions. Government is composed of decision makers but it is also composed of the manifold people who carry out those decisions and make the system work (sometimes called the “bureaucracy”). A data entry person in a municipal water works is part of government. If it is a separate, for-profit, business then it is not government. The delineation is that the government portion is paid for by the community as a whole and gives service to the community as a whole.

Benefits for Citizens from Taxes

This is often an area of irritation for taxpayers. “Why should I have to pay school taxes when I don’t have a child in school?” “Why should I pay taxes to the federal government when they are spending money on this, or that, “frivolous” item?” “I don’t have a car, why do I have to pay for taxes that take care of the roads?” “I don’t go out of my house, why should I pay for National Parks?” “I am proud of being illiterate and ignorant, why should I pay for libraries or schools?”

The answer to such questions is a matter of direct and indirect use. You may not drive on the roads but every person who delivers something to you DOES use them. You may not go to the National Parks but you DO benefit from protections of the environment with better breathing and a general ecosystem. You may not have a child in school but I am certain that you make use of services from people (likely including yourself) who DID move through the educational system. Indirect benefits of taxes are easily forgotten when one is trying to balance the budget for the month. Every rich person is totally dependent on hundreds or thousands of other people who are making use of services that are taxpayer-funded — and so are the rich people.

When a person is choosing (if they have that opportunity) where to live, cost-of-living is an important factor. This includes taxes. You will probably save money in moving to a low tax area. But lower taxes are also likely to lead to poorer infrastructure and services. Poorer roads, poorer school systems, poorer fire and police departments, and so forth. Although poorer does mean less well-funded, many of these departments may still do very well because of the dedication of the people who work there — funding is not everything — but funding does matter.

How are Taxes Allocated?

There are many ways that taxes may be levied. In the United States, ONLY Congress can create taxes. Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary branches can create taxes although the Judiciary can determine whether the Constitution allows a particular type of tax to be levied upon the citizenry. Prior to the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, all taxes levied by the federal government had to be allocated based upon a state’s population. This made any type of income tax upon an individual very complicated as it would mean a double index of tax responsibility — first allocating based upon the state population, then some individual allocation based on another formula. After the Sixteenth Amendment, the federal government was freed from the need to tax only upon basis of a state’s population — though the ability to tax continued to reside with Congress.

In the US, income taxes are based on income divisions, with higher income brackets having to pay a higher percentage of income in taxes. Alas, this is made very complex with loopholes, deductions, special credits and other methods of reducing or eliminating taxes. Since tax structures, and laws, are primarily created by the wealthy for the wealthy most of those loopholes and such primarily benefit the wealthy.

There are many other types of taxes. Tariffs, which can be created and managed ONLY by Congress are a type of sales tax paid by the consumer directly or indirectly via the price charged by the manufacturer/distributor. Sales taxes are based on the value of an article purchased. Property taxes are according to the current value of a piece of property. Payroll taxes are charged against specific types of benefits associated with employees. Capital gains taxes, broken into short-term and long-term investment, are levied against any profits (or losses) associated with buying and selling stocks or other intangible value. The last major category is associated with “wealth transfer” — moving items of value from one person to another such as a parent transferring wealth to a child upon their death.

The Uses of Taxes

A tax is money accumulated from the community as a whole which benefits the community as a whole. It should be that, the more taxes that are given to the government, the more the government does for the taxed citizenry. It is often true — but not always because it is always possible that the money will go to only certain segments of the population. In a representative democracy, it is up to us to make sure that our candidates really represent our wishes — that they truly represent us.

Types of Taxes

Tax structures can be progressive, regressive, or flat. They can also be uneven based upon special exceptions so that, even if a tax starts off as a certain category, for certain companies or individuals it can effectively be something different.

A progressive tax has the underlying motivation of having those who are more able to pay taxes — do such. As mentioned before in previous newsletters, there is no direct relationship between income and the earning of income. Much depends on the tax laws and other work laws. We may SAY that a great teacher is the most important job in society — but that is NOT reflected in wages, requirements, or expressed appreciation. On the other hand, a CEO may be a great figurehead of a company and may (or may not) be involved in corporate leadership, product direction, and other things that lend support to the earnings, and value, of a company — but they do not produce that value themselves.

A progressive tax tries to encourage a desire to do one’s “best” within a capitalist society while spreading the recompense among all the workers who generate the corporate value and wealth. The head of a company making $400 million dollars might be taxed $200 million (leaving “only” $200 million) and a worker producing value make $40,000 dollars and be taxed $200. This is determined by a combination of tax laws, wage laws, and unions (which are designed to represent the people creating the value).

A regressive tax works in the opposite direction. That $400 million dollar position might pay an effective tax (because of loopholes, deductions, and credits) of only $500 while the $40,000 dollar/year worker pays $10,000. Normally, such regressive taxes are not done via income taxes (much too obvious) but via loopholes, credits, and special deviations from common tax law.

Another method of imposing regressive taxes is by taxing things that poorer people use more of, as a percentage of expenditures, than richer people. For example, tariffs are often a regressive tax because a $100 tariff on a television set is so much larger of an amount for a poorer person than it would be for a richer person.

Flat taxes always come up in conversations about tax system improvements. It has the huge advantage of being simple. But it only works without loopholes or other special aspects of the law. The rich pay more because they have more — they don’t like the removal of the loopholes. However, a person earning just enough to live on will be hurt considerably by a fixed tax whereas a rich person getting excessive income may not even notice it.

Tax Fairness

Different formulas can work and they can approach fairness but loopholes, credits, and special situations can, and will, sink any reform. When we are paying taxes and are not receiving the services and value that we expect, it is time to find new representatives.

We pay taxes as a whole to receive benefits as a whole. When we pay higher taxes, we deserve higher benefits. But if we prefer lower taxes, we should expect lower (perhaps much lower) benefits.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

To Be Human: Or perhaps to be sapient. The first step of being an overlord is to deny the equality of others.

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Sun, 22 Feb 2026 14:18:00 +0000

I, along with two of my children, have been watching One Piece for a while. Having just finished the seventh episode in the live action version, I am encountering a familiar story. We have the fishmen denying the rights of humans as the result of humans having denied the rights of fishmen. Oh, the cycles — everywhere the cycles. This has been a motif throughout history for people. Oh, not with fishmen. That is just our imaginations extending current behavior into worlds of fantasy.

In each war, the “other” becomes less than human. They have to be. No one sane would attempt the murder of their own children and family. That is the path of self-destruction and annihilation. But the other tribe — once they are no longer our cousins and part of the family of humanity — they are fair game.

Ways to Divide

There are lots of methods used for this division and people are somehow easily enticed into believing them. One of my uncles brought home a wife, of Japanese birth, from his travels in the Navy during World War II. Since it was after World War II, she was not subject to the concentration camps and theft of property that US citizens of Japanese ancestry were subject to — but she encountered resistance and active discrimination. I never saw her get angry and she always just smiled and continued along.

But she was probably already used to dealing with discrimination — against women. It hasn’t been that long (less than 50 years) since most women in the US had to have a male’s (husband, father, guardian) signature on any paper to buy property or get a credit card. It is still bad. Many women, still believing in the “traditional” subservience of women to men, continue to vote for misogynistic legislators. (“The Handmaid’s Tale” is possible — with the active support of women.)

Within the US, there was initially dehumanization of the First Nations. They were called “savages” although the conquerors of the Americas committed far more savage acts. But, the tribes of the First Nations were not human so it was okay. Then the importation of blacks, as slaves, via European and African traders. They were even less human since property has no rights and it is perfectly fine to sell off a chair (child) from the set around the table (parents). Even after the 15th Amendment was passed, people actively continued to treat blacks as a lesser variant of human and, often, still do.

There was decimation of the Ainu population on the Japanese islands as they were overcome. “Fifth line” (named for the line number indicating nationality on USSR passports) Jewish people were murdered by Stalin and the Jewish population was even more horribly reduced by Hitler in the Holocaust. The citizens of Gaza have been severely culled in recent clashes. And there were the mass Armenian murders. And tribal conflicts in Africa. And so on and so on. Humans seem to have an amazing capacity to dehumanize others.

If I have left out your specific discriminated-against division, I apologize. There are just SO many.

Gender, skin color, religion, ethnicity, which side of the railroad tracks, political beliefs. Humans seem to be able to divide ourselves in all kinds of ways. I wonder whether we will be able to behave better if we encounter (or recognize) sapients from other worlds or galaxies?

The United States; a Nation of Immigrants

In the United States, we are all immigrants or descendents of immigrants. Actually, in the Americas, it seems that none of us originated in the Americas. The First Nations are believed to have crossed to the Americas via the Bering Strait and via boats from Polynesia and Africa.

But, even though we are all descended from immigrants, we currently seem to be embroiled in controversy about how long ago, and from what countries, our ancestors have immigrated. Who is valid, and an appropriate human, and who is not.

Consider the current President of the United States. Two of his wives are immigrants. His mother was an immigrant, His paternal grandparents were immigrants. Certain changes in laws, under consideration, would remove the citizenship of several of his relatives. At best, the following of correct immigration procedures for some of his relatives is unclear. At worst, they were situations that did not follow proper procedure at all.

Somehow, in spite of the history of the United States and the Americas, it seems that how and when we arrived is now more important than the many contributions immigrants have always made and continue to make. It is just one more rationale for division.

Transient division and the category of “whiteness”.

Although the concept of race is an imaginary set of categories that was created to justify colonialism and slavery, the definitions are variable depending on the politics and power structure of the times. The category of “white” is the name given to those who are currently included within the power group. In the 1960s, there was a great uproar over the candidacy of John F. Kennedy because of his religion (Roman Catholic). Those who hated him said the Pope would take over the United States. Roman Catholics were not “white”, then they were. People from Ireland were not white — then they were. Same with Italians.

It hasn’t always been explicit. But there are often signs (literally) that show “IRISH need not apply”, “NO CHINAMEN”, or (mostly in other countries) “NO Palestinians”. Of course, we were not happy with those of British ancestry (many of the “Patriots” were also of British ancestry) during the Revolutionary Way but, with such close ties still, it was more of a “civil” war than an “us versus them” war. Our current occupant in the Oval Office (called, by colleagues, “the biggest slumlord of New York”) was fined, along with his father, multiple times for the practice of “redlining” in the 1980s. Redlining draws borders to segregate according to race, or some other characteristic. This practice officially ended in the 1990s and 2000s but I suspect it still exists.

In each case, justification continued by making the other group not-human — particularly when a powerful person says they come from “shithole countries”.

The family of humans

There are a lot of feelings about the origin of humanity. They started from a couple called Adam and Eve. They evolved from a sequence of beings represented by “Lucy” discovered in Africa. They started from an unknown ancient ancestor in China. In Norse myth, Ask and Embla were made by the gods from a couple of trees.

I am not going to try to say what is “right”. It really doesn’t matter. The one thing that all origin stories have in common is a beginning from a long-ago couple of beings. In a way, it is a “chicken or egg” type of story — as there may have been OTHER couples in addition to the couple that origin stories say were the beginning. It doesn’t matter. There was a beginning. And it continued.

A need for expansion of area, plus an inherent curiosity, moved groups of people around the globe as human population grew. As they settled into each area, small differences popped up as they adapted to their new area. But they all came from the same beginning and they remain family. Family doesn’t always get along but we try to make it work.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all remember that “we are family” is not just a song made famous by Sister Sledge?

Please share, or restack, if you find this discussion valuable. Thanks!

Voter Fraud vs Voter Suppression: One rarely happens and the other happens too often

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Mon, 16 Feb 2026 14:46:00 +0000

In a democracy, the permission to vote is a concept known as eligibility. Voter fraud occurs when someone who is NOT eligible votes anyway. Voter suppression is when someone, who IS eligible to vote, is prevented from doing such.

History of and Changes in Democracy

Democracy arose as a concept, in ancient Greece, allowing participation in government by citizens. Although it was a direct democracy — people voted on issues without anyone between their opinion and the accumulation of votes — not everyone was able to vote. Only men could vote but not necessarily all men. Sometimes there were pre-requisites. For example, only men who had completed military service might be allowed to vote (Robert A. Heinlein would approve). For some cities, the man had to have achieved a certain level of wealth (an oligarchic democracy). For each democratic city of Greece, there was a set of criteria and those criteria could differ from each other although all had being male as a basic requirement.

Modern democracy has shifted from ancient Greece in two major ways. The first is a matter of inclusion. The original definition of eligibility is written directly within the Constitution (or other specification of the rules of government). This can be expanded by the vote of those already eligible. For example, a sufficient number of men had to vote for adding women to the roster of eligible voters (US 19th Amendment). When only “white” men could vote, it was up to those men to vote to allow blacks to vote (US 15th Amendment). In the United States, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitution was approved by already eligible voters to lower the voting age to eighteen.

The other change from ancient Greece is that most modern democratic systems are representative democracies. People do not vote directly on issues. They vote for people who they believe will cast votes in the way they, themselves, would choose to vote. The representatives (whether called a Senator or Congressperson or Member of Parliament or …) are there to represent the people who voted for them. This is the theory. It is not always put into effect. Democracy, including representative democracy, is not easy.

Voter Fraud

Voter fraud is when someone, who does not meet the criteria of eligibility, votes anyway. This is very rare — because of the layers of safeguards in the various voting systems for the states within the US. This is a matter of identification and registration. People are allowed to vote when their identification matches their registration records. In spite of false accusations, there are many ways to assure this. Voter fraud in the US is very rare.

That does not mean that voter eligibility should not be checked. It means that current checking of eligibility has been proven to be sufficient. Vigilance is appropriate, paranoia is not. The fact that someone has lost an election indicates they did not have enough support. Recounts may be appropriate. Throwing tantrums is not.

One area of vulnerability is associated with the mechanics of voting. There are movies that talk about potential vulnerabilities — and they often talk about them as proof that fraud has occurred. Potential vulnerability is not the same as fraud. Normally, such films neglect to mention other layers of protection in addition to the one in which they have found potential vulnerabilities.

Thus, multiple layers of checks for eligibility is a good, and necessary, type of requirement. And vulnerability within one layer does not equate to fraud.

Voter Suppression

The other end of the “teeter-totter” is voter suppression which, unfortunately, is not rare in the United States. Voter suppression is when someone, who IS eligible to vote, is prevented from voting. I cannot claim any knowledge of such occurrences outside of the United States though I am certain that they have occurred.

One method used early in the history of the US is access to polling places (where a vote is cast). Polling places would usually be placed within city centers — making it very difficult for people, who lived away from the city, to vote. Keep these methods in mind as they never really go away — they just adapt to current circumstances.

Another method of suppression is restrictions based on finances. One of these methods was called a poll tax which required a fee to be paid in order to use the polling place to cast a vote. Since poll taxes were not explicitly made NOT legal, it took much litigation to stop the practice. Other methods of suppression also exist to keep the poor from voting. Not being given the time to vote is one such method. Given a choice between keeping a job and voting, most will decide to keep the job.

Another method of suppression is to prevent registration. This IS illegal but, if the local law enforcement officials do not want to enforce the law, it can still be done. Many a person during the 1960s in the US encountered this forceful repression (or suppression) of the access to the vote. The Voting Rights Act had aspects which clarified enforcement against these measures. Alas, the current Supreme Court, in their highly dubious wisdom, decided that these enforcement measures were “no longer needed” so many of them have come into active use once again.

A current attempt at voter suppression is trying to create additional hurdles to prove identification. As mentioned earlier, there is no significant voter fraud in the US. Making it more difficult for people to identify themselves is just another variant of voter suppression. Require a driver’s license (or identity card issued by the state). Sounds reasonable doesn’t it? Perhaps. But not within the context of having to go more than 50 miles to get such an identification. Many poor do not have access to transport — or allowed the time off from work to make the journey — to do such. (This assumes they will even be allowed to get the identification.) Base documents, such as birth certificates, may be difficult for the poor, or rural, person to obtain. In Canada, any one of nine different types of identification is allowed. Current US legislation is focused on preventing the poor from being able to vote.

Access to polling places. Hurdles to registration. Roadblocks to identification. There are other, even sneakier, methods used to curtail voting by eligible people.

On the other side, after votes have been cast, methods can be used to suppress votes. In Florida, in the year 2000, it was decided that voting cards which had not had their votes completely marked (look up “hanging chads”) were invalid. It went to the Supreme Court. In order to speed up the results of the election, it was determined that they could be considered invalid. In my opinion, the elections-in-question SHOULD have been redone. Once again, this COULD have been potentially okay if the rule was used for ALL votes. Somehow, only certain counties of Florida had this particular problem and, thus, only votes that were cast a certain way tended to be thrown out.

Summary

Democracy is not easy. So said “the Founding Fathers”. That has been proven time after time. It requires educated, and informed, voters. Educated means being able to find, verify, and use, information. It does not necessarily mean going to school. It requires enough people to want to see democracy work correctly. It is a forever struggle.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

For Their Own Good: No, it probably isn't -- for many reasons

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 15:02:00 +0000

I am a voracious reader (my wife even moreso) and often get SF/Fantasy books before they become well known. One of things I got was a copy of “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” back before most people had even heard of him. As people who enjoy the series knows, Harry is courageous, loyal, honorable, and a number of other great, positive, attributes. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have weak aspects of his character. This makes him more human as well as providing gist for the author to write more about what he must overcome.

Since the scene happens very early in the book, I don’t consider this much of a spoiler. Within the second book in the series, “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”, a house elf named Dobby pops into Harry’s bedroom and TELLS (doesn’t ask, doesn’t inform, doesn’t reason) Harry that he must not return to Hogwarts. In spite of Harry’s efforts to quiet him or stop him from making his Aunt and Uncle angry, Dobby pays no attention to Harry. He has stopped him from getting letters from friends and now he is telling him what to do (or what not to do). Various methods continue to be used (sometimes explicitly but, more often, just inexplicable disastrous events) throughout the book that try to get Harry away from Hogwarts.

Towards the end, in response to a query from Dobby about how Dobby can repay him, Harry asks Dobby to promise him to “never try to save my life again”. Dobby’s efforts — though with the best of motives to help and protect Harry — have been among the greatest obstacles Harry has had to face. And this reflects actions that happen in real life to us all.

This is for your own good

I suspect that most of us have been told this at some time or another. Possibly from a parent, possibly from a friend or acquaintance. At best, it is a bad way to phrase a situation. At worst, it is a statement of control. It may be from a desire to protect based out of personal experience. It may be based on a sense of responsibility (especially as a parent). But the person does NOT know “it is for your own good”. It may be the worst possible thing. It may be avoiding a life lesson that would have been useful for the rest of the person’s life. It probably isn’t meant to be bad advice — but it certainly says “hey, there are a lot of useful things that should be talked about and we aren’t talking about them”.

As seen from the scenes in the Harry Potter book, sometimes the desire to protect can cause greater danger than the event being protected from.

I know what you want

This one is also something that most of us have heard at some point. They have declared that they have the power to read your mind. It would be good if they headed off to a carnival to set up a fortune teller’s booth — an appropriate use of their skills. Sometimes this is not stated up front at the beginning. Instead, they give you a watermelon flavored popsicle and say “I knew this would be what you would have chosen” — while you really dislike watermelon- flavored things.

This situation is a call for communication. But it is also an indication that communication has not been good in the past. Sometimes it is a result of “politeness” such that you have been taught to appreciate anything given and not complain about it. It is a good way to have a house filled with specialized objects, that you don’t even like, as one person who has given you something tells others and they assume that you liked it since you didn’t say otherwise.

This is also an opportunity for practice of assertiveness. “Thank you for your thinking of me but watermelon is not my favorite flavor”. Polite but, if they are listening to you at all, they now know that you don’t like watermelon flavored popsicles. “No, I don’t want that.” Sometimes they will then insist that you DO want that. They have no desire to listen. How you respond to that is very dependent on many things. The safest is to not respond, allow things to proceed, and minimize interactions (if possible) with the other person.

Note that telling them, and their forgetting, can be irritating but not necessarily done on purpose.

I know what you need

This is an additional step of control. They are not only telling you that they have read your mind but they also have possession of a crystal ball that will tell them the future.

All of these behaviors can be lumped under the phrase “presumptuous control”. We have all encountered such (unless VERY lucky). Sometimes the control word is in command and we cannot do anything about it. At other times, via communication and assertion, we can use the situation to improve the relationship.

Under what circumstances have you been the target of, or have initiated, such statements?

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

So You Want to Buy a House: The dream has receded for many but hope does not have to be gone forever

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Tue, 03 Feb 2026 13:43:00 +0000

My 26-year-old son occasionally moans to me that “my generation will never be able to buy a house” — to which I raise my eyebrows and say “you might”. A further response is “things just aren’t the same as they were in your generation”. At which point, I stop trying to change his mind. He is right. Things are not the same as they were in my generation.

Yet, it wasn’t that way in the past and it doesn’t have to be that way in the near future. It isn’t unusual to look around and see a situation and not be able to imagine anything different. I have done blogs/newsletters on many closely related topics — income inequality, hope, apathy, entropy — but sometimes it is necessary to bring related topics together to address something specific.

Buying a house is a specific, and physical, issue that is closely related to income inequality, hope, and apathy.

Why do people say “I’ll never be able to buy a house”?

Most people rent. It used to be that most people owned (or held the lease and the bank held the property title) their house. In the US, in 2025, the average mortgage cost $2329/month. The average rent in the US, in 2025, was $1987/month. This is a $342 difference — not much. Admittedly, even not much may be too much for many.

With only a $300ish difference between renting and owning, why are so many renting? Some want to rent. Assuming you stay in the house for a number of years, a house is a great investment but it ties up a lot of money which could be used in other ways. It is also very “non-liquid”. Getting your money out of the house (equity) may be easy in a “sellers market” or difficult in a “buyers market” or if features in your house are no longer fashionable. I am sure there other reasons for people to prefer renting.

Requirements to buy a house beyond what is needed to rent

For those who would like to, but feel they cannot do such, there are two major hurdles. First is a down payment — usually 10% but sometimes 20% and, at times, down to 5%. The second, which is closely related to down payment requirements, is your “credit score”. A credit score is a fictitious number devised by credit companies. Companies that determine credit risk have their own arcane formulas. The minimum down payment required depends a lot on the economy and upon your credit score. This credit score also affects requirements for deposits on rentals and services (such as utilities). A third is being able to qualify for the loan — a mixture of income, credit score, savings, and other assets.

While the down payment is partially dependent on credit score, it still exists. For 2025, Bing says an average house in the USA is $522,200. With a good credit score, a 10% downpayment would be $52,220. There are also various one-time costs associated with buying a house, so let us say $60,000 is needed to buy an “average” house. If you started savings towards this total five years before, that would mean $12,000/year in savings. Or six months rent in savings instead of in a landlord’s pocket.

So, beyond requirements for renting, buying a house requires a good credit score, a down payment, and qualifying for the loan.

What has changed? Why have hopes to buy a house dwindled over the years?

There is a simple, quick answer — it is much more difficult to build up the savings needed. And, with the added difficulty, it is much easier to get discouraged and say “what the heck, I didn’t really want one that badly anyway”. The longer answer of WHY is sad but reversible with a LOT of work by MANY people.

Note that the credit score is tightly connected to savings and to a secure, reliable history of always paying bills on time. There are lots of details, of which some are secret and some are not very rational, but those are the primary needs.

Over the past 40 years (starting around the time of Ronald Reagan’s term of office in the US), real income (inflation adjusted dollars) has gone down for most workers. A result of the good old ridiculous “trickle-down” economic fantasy. Many people have written about minimum wage amounts, including myself here, but it is also true for those who make more than minimum wage. More people are earning less money and this makes it difficult to save. If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck it is virtually impossible to save.

There is a reason why so many people put that extra change into lottery tickets.

After World War II, there was a great push to build small, livable houses for the people coming home from the war and their families. These were called “starter homes” as it was recognized that most people would eventually want to move into larger houses. Nowadays, the idea has been revived in the concept of “tiny houses” — but many communities are very resistant to allowing these because they bring the average house price down (deflate the market). I will repeat — communities are resistant to building houses that more people can afford.

House sizes and house prices (per square foot) have gone up faster than general income. There are many fewer people who can buy a 3500 square foot house with a $80,000/year income nowadays than could buy a 1200 square foot house with a $15,000/year income in 1975. The house size (and price) has ballooned and the wages have stagnated.

In the US, Congress passed tax laws that allowed deductions for mortgage interest. This was very beneficial to those who lived at that time but having this advantage for house owners meant that houses were/are a good, usually stable, investment — which has led to home price inflation going up faster than cost-of-living and wages. In the past ten to fifteen years, with this being “such a good investment” — and lack of modification of tax laws to keep larger businesses, which have a lot of capital, out of the market — business funds have purchased more and more homes making ownership harder, affordable houses scarcer, and rental prices less flexible and higher.

So, a longer answer is —

real wages have decreased for most people in the US.
House sizes have greatly increased with few smaller houses available.
Corporations and larger financial institutions have taken advantage of tax benefits and loopholes to move house ownership away from individuals and families.

How can such a situation be reversed?

Once again, there is a short answer. Reverse income inequality and get tax and wage laws back to the era of pro middle-income/upper lower-income. The long answer is much harder as those that have benefited with changes over the past 50 years have a lot of power, are extremely greedy, and continuously want more. There are, of course, exceptions who give back to the community on a voluntary basis.

Income Inequality, wealth, wages, and savings

Here in the United States, we are enamored of our wealthy people. It’s been that way for a long time — perhaps since the beginning of the country. We don’t have lords and ladies, dukes and duchesses, kings and queens (though some would like to be). But we do have ultra wealthy people who have much, much more than they need or can use.

Many people admire those rich people. They sit on the sidelines and watch them, envy them, and cheer them on. It’s kind of like being at a racecourse and watching those speeding horses go by while cheering them on. “Rich people” include groups of highly overpaid CEOs and other C-class executives, inherited wealth, the rapidly dwindling “rags to riches” fantasy fulfillments, the financial market manipulators, and celebrities. I may never understand why celebrities are so highly paid — perhaps they are just exceptionally beautiful race horses such that people want to put wads of money into their harnesses.

The one category that should be expanded upon is “rags to riches”. It did use to be true that people could come up with an idea, dig in, save, and work their way to the top of the financial structure. They didn’t always do it fairly or legally — that is where the term “robber baron” came from. But it is mostly just a fantasy nowadays though it is firmly lodged into the national psyche.

Bill Gates came from an upper-middle (possibly lower-upper) income family, Mark Zuckerberg was at Harvard when he (with others) started the basis of Facebook — and he wasn’t a scholarship person, Elon Musk was part of a wealthy South African family. I won’t deny talent also but they started off WAY above the “rags” stage. Warren Buffett seems to have started his journey at a lower level than other rich “superstars” but he still didn’t start at the “rags” level.

So, who cares? However they did it, don’t they deserve it? Aren’t they a reasonable target for our own fantasies of achievement? Maybe — but their huge coffers are filled with what could be our savings and down payments. Tax and wage laws transfer what could, and should in my opinion, belong to the others.

There is NO “entitlement” to riches. NO ONE got rich by themselves. They may have started on their own (or with a few partners) but, after a certain point, they have to start leveraging the work and talents of others to keep climbing the wealth pyramid. An awful lot of the rich have forgotten, or firmly deny, this reality.

Here is an insanely simple example. A person with a company that has $10,000,000 of sales per year has 200 people working for them each making, on average, $25,000 per year. This leaves the person “owning” the company with $5,000,000 to put into their offshore accounts every year. If the wages were raised to an average of $40,000 per year, those 200 people would each have an additional $15,000/year for savings, education, a down payment, a vacation, or whatever and the “owner” of the company would still have $2,000,000 to put into their offshore account. That “offshore account” is also a major factor in that they quite likely are using various legal loopholes and methods to prevent proper taxes being taken from that $2,000,000.

The idea of “ownership” is a basic tenet of capitalism — but it isn’t written on the tablets with the Ten Commandments. The ability of the “owner” to pay their employees $25,000 per year rather than $40,000 per year is a matter of wage laws, inherent morality, and unions. Note that unions have suffered greatly over the past 50 years. There is no magic wand that says Bertha doing X work “deserves” $Y,000 a year in salary and benefits. It is ALL up to the society and the laws that are enacted.

So, how can the migration of wealth from the 98% to the 2% be reversed?

Once again, a simple answer first. Tax and wage laws need to be shifted back to favor the 98%. And unions need to be appreciated and supported with laws and by the community. There is not much to be done about people’s inherent morality or lack thereof.

Changing the laws

The wage and tax laws favor the rich because our legislators favor the rich when creating the laws. Some do this because they are among the rich — they have a lot of money and see nothing wrong with creating laws that will keep them accumulating excess money.

I “joke” about the rich owning our legislators. It seems that way but it is not quite that simple. Being elected to national office is a very expensive business (see why in my old blog here). It is easier for a candidate to have the money needed to be elected if they have rich sponsors. Those rich sponsors may, or may not, tell them how to vote and what laws to create or remove — but the elected officials are very careful not to antagonize their rich contributors because “how can they do good for people if they aren’t in office — and that means getting re-elected time and time again”? This is an excellent reason for term limitations. People who have held elected positions for a long time are very likely to do more and more to retain their position but do less and less of the things they originally wanted to do. Once again, exceptions do exist.

The rich have always had greater leverage but it accelerated horribly when the Supreme Court, very dubiously, ruled in favor of the rich in the Citizens United case in 2010. Although not explicit, this case allowed the rich to give (without disclosure) as much money as they wanted to candidates. It allowed the purchase of legislators. There really isn’t any other way to describe it.

So, the rich have a highly weighted influence on the US legislators and courts. There are also many other legal and economic benefits for the rich that are not available to the poor. Lastly, legislators who have been elected for multiple terms are more likely to value being re-elected than to be actively fulfilling their original desires for the citizens.

Primaries are key

Peacefully, the main method that US citizens have of truly changing our legislative base, and judicial appointments, is via the system of primaries. It IS possible to start new political parties but that is a much more difficult process than changing existing political parties from within.

The ruling structure within a political party have enormous advantages for electing the candidates that THEY choose. But, with a lot of hard work, it is possible to change the candidates running for office. It is possible to choose candidates that favor the general populace rather than the rich.

This is not easy but it IS possible. Without it, nothing more can be done. Tax, wage, and election laws will not change. You have to have legislators willing to work for the general populace and who are not scared of disrupting the status quo.

Once the legislative base has changed, what then?

We’ve really talked about all the parts but we’ll summarize here (not in any particular order):

Legislate enforceable ethics requirements for all branches of government.
Legislate term limitations.
Legislate enforceable limitations on campaign donations and require (down to the individual) visibility of all people donating.
Change the tax structure such that the 98% have a better chance to accumulate and save. The word “billionaire” should be so rare that people need to check their (online or print) dictionaries to know what it means. This includes changing tax rates and closing loopholes.
Change tax laws so that corporate ownership of property no longer has any advantage over investment of any other type of property.
Add citizen protection agencies that have the power, and political independence, to protect individual rights including unionization.

In some cases, creating effective legislation means approving Constitutional Amendments.

So, there we have it. Yes, it is much harder to buy a house now for most of us. But it didn’t use to be that way and it doesn’t have to continue to be that way. Primaries are key.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Giving Tree: Boundaries, boundaries, and boundaries. They determine positive versus negative results and actions.

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:45:00 +0000

This newsletter will have some disclosures, and discussion, about a book (The Giving Tree) and a movie (What a Wonderful Life) that might allow you a different perspective on the works — and potentially ruin your enjoyment of them. So, if you think that might happen … stop reading.

There is a book, a widely read and beloved book, called “The Giving Tree” by Shel Silverstein. It is known for its words, and its illustrations, and for the ideas of how giving is good and how a person needs different things at different times in one’s life. All those are good things and certainly many people can, and should, enjoy the book at that level.

But, examining further, we can read the book again at a different level. At first, the boy and the tree had fun together. The boy enjoyed the tree as it was and enjoyed the shade and played in the old leaves. The tree loved being able to provide enjoyment for the boy and loved being useful. There is no explicit acknowledgement, or thanks, from the boy about the tree.

The boy goes away. The next time he comes back, he wants money. The tree gives him its apples to sell. In the story, at least, the boy doesn’t even say thank you. Goes away, comes back. This time he wants a house and the tree gives him his branches. He goes away again and then comes back. Each of these intervals are longer and longer and the tree remains lonely. The next time, the man wants a boat to travel around — the tree donates his trunk to build the boat. The man goes away and, later, comes back tired and the tree offers his stump to sit on.

Not being privy to the author’s thoughts, he might very well have meant to convey the things that I came away with — or might not. Note, by the end of the story, the tree has given away everything (except his stump (and roots?)). In humans, this would be called martyrdom. The tree is left to be very lonely unless the human wants something. And the human shows no appreciation (and never says “thank you”). To my mind, this is a warning book showing the dangers of not maintaining one’s boundaries. (It would be an ecological message if the tree had been non-aware).

But, as stated in the beginning, a story (especially a well-written one) can be read at many different levels. A happy one or a warning one. And a well-written story can provide different depths of lessons as one experiences more of life and has that lens of history looking upon what one is reading.

Then there is the Jimmy Stewart movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”. It, too, has different levels to examine. For most people it is a heartening movie about how the wealth of friendship is the best wealth of all. And I don’t disagree with that message. But the premise of the movie is “what would his world have been like if he had never been born?” Note that it is NOT “what would his world have been like if he had made different choices?” but his absence — his inability to do the things he was able to do. And this lesson is very true — we can never know what effect our actions make upon others.

But, within that life, what do we see? We have many instances of self-sacrifice. It is not the same as The Giving Tree. His choices leave him alive and, perhaps, those choices led to a better life? Perhaps. But the movie clearly says that you must choose what you think is best for others, rather than for yourself, in order to help the world. It is such choices that are highlighted in the movie. Perhaps he did make other choices based on his own desires? Perhaps. Or perhaps making the more “selfish” choices would have led to an even better result? Perhaps. We won’t know because that is not the story. Self-sacrifice is the focus on the movie — and not doing that, because he had never lived, was a disaster.

Most well-written books and scripts have multiple levels. As we grow, and have more experiences, our interpretations change. They “deepen”. Perhaps we read into the words something that the author had no awareness of being done. Perhaps we find the golden nuggets that the author was trying to allow us to grow into. Sometimes, those essays assigned in school are a way to practice aspects of writing. Sometimes, they are ways for us to express things that are not easily expressed. For me, both the “The Giving Tree” and “It’s a Wonderful Life” give forth a much different message than that for most people. That doesn’t make me correct or make me wrong — it means that my life has given me a different lens with which to see the world.

How about you? Are there stories that you have seen with much different eyes as you have grown older?

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Right, Left, Up, Down: Directions (including politics) are relative. How are we really moving?

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Mon, 19 Jan 2026 16:45:00 +0000

There are a lot of words that label political viewpoints — conservative, liberal, progressive, radical, authoritarian, moderate, centrist, pragmatic, and so forth. There are ALSO words that connect economic views to political views even though these are disjoint situations — so a person might be called a socialist, capitalist, communist, or whatever inferring that these economic systems can adequately reflect a person’s political views.

But, whatever label is used to describe — it can only be useful if the same definition of meaning is used by both the speaker/writer and the listener/reader. All of the above words do have definition meanings (though some are less strictly defined than others). But, if you ask someone the definition of many of these words, they get described from a basis of what they believe it means to themselves as opposed to what the dictionary may say.

People who use a word to communicate must all be working from the same definition.

So, usage of words like liberal or conservative rarely have value. Certainly current usage, and people definitions (as opposed to dictionary definitions), are not the same as they were thirty years ago or even twenty years ago.

If one does want to discuss, and describe, political viewpoints and words are difficult to be sure if they are valid, then what can be done?

Most people agree, in general, that people’s political viewpoints are towards the “left” or the “right” or the “center”. The exact definitions of those words are NOT in full agreement with all users of such words — but they can be used in terms of comparison.

I would propose that the main spectrum of comparison for political views would range from anarchy (where each person does, says, and behaves as they want — fully independent of others) and fascism (possibly dictatorship or totalitarian) at the other. One end gives all power equally to individuals and the other end concentrates power and control into the hands of a few (usually with ONE person in charge overall).

anarchy ———————————————————————————————- fascism

Societies of fully anarchic principles don’t last long — conflicts between individuals arise almost immediately and cause the system to collapse. On the other end, however, fascist systems are very hard to eliminate because of the full concentration of resources, control, and power. Fascist systems are more likely to be overthrown because of the huge pools of people who exist outside of the controlling groups — they get “fed up” and create (usually unstable) temporary structures OR the core control groups break up due to the inherent problems with the transfer of power and control within a very small group.

You could also label the above spectrum

individual ———————————————————————————-—— core cabal

because it is a line of distribution of power and control.

Now that we have the spectrum line set up what do we do with it? It is all about relativity. The label “centrist” should go into the center but note that the centrist values of the US are very different from the “centrist” values in the rest of the world. For most of the world, Universal Health Care is just a norm that people don’t really think much about — it is only the corporate/stockholder world of the United States that believes people are entitled to make profits out of sickness. For not quite as much of the world, paid public education continues up through later university levels — with the strange idea that an educated public makes a stronger country. The folks that call themselves “centrist” in the US would be quite a bit farther to the right of center than those who call themselves such outside of the US. This applies to much of the US Democratic party.

The older Republican party would still be to the “right” of the Democratic party but the current Republican party has shifted so far towards the right end of the spectrum that those people they call “far left” are really pretty close to the center. Remember that it is all about relativity. The farther “right” one group is, the more “left” an opposing group might be. As far as the above spectrum is concerned, there isn’t much activity on the left end for the US. Anarchists have no political power and direct mandates (which routes around representative democracy) seems to be losing out in general elections versus the courts (people say “yes”, representatives say “no” and the representatives “win”).

We can play a game at placing all other labels onto the spectrum but — as is true of personal (rather than dictionary) definitions — we probably would disagree a lot on that position. But, relative to the Democratic party and the current Republican party, libertarians would probably be placed in-between and the Green party to the left of the Democratic party (more left, the more individual-oriented).

The title of this newsletter includes two other directions — up and down. These are associated with wealth which is closely related to the “right” end of the spectrum but not identical to it. Just as in the progress of physicists from Newton to Einstein to Hawking, large gravity masses can distort space (and time?), the existence of excessive wealth can distort the individual/fascism spectrum. It does it just as does a dwarf star in space. The excessively wealthy individual can act as a very, very weighty (both senses of the word — pun intended) individual. Thus, on the individual to fascist scale those “super-individual”s can distort the line either direction (or both at once which is weird but, in this viewpoint, still possible.

What is “best” then? Would someone right in the middle cover the best situation? I doubt it. The center of the mass of wealth/control/influence will fluctuate from day to day, year to year. If you are part of that exclusive set of people who concentrate the power/control then that is “best” for you. If you have ideas less popular to the general populace you might head left on the spectrum but, even if economic distortion continues to occur, your “best” place will still be to the “right” of many.

Where do you place yourself? Your elected representative? Your king or queen? Your neighbor across the street? Just as is said for other characteristics (such as social interactions), it’s a wide, wide world.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

The Second Amendment: With this New Year, we need DISCUSSIONS. Discussions where we talk -- hear and listen -- think and respond. No need of rants, sound bites, bumper stickers or political diatribes.

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Sun, 04 Jan 2026 18:57:00 +0000

Another day, another murder. “Just a sad consequence of freedom”. So, why is the United States the only country in the world — that is not in the midst of armed civil war — that has such problems?

History of the Second Amendment

vv v Back in the days of the beginning of the United States of America, after the Constitution was signed, the “Founding Fathers” continued to work on a Bill of Rights. These aspects — amendments to be considered as part of the Constitution (a work in progress) had been discussed during the time of creation of the Constitution. But, as is true of most things that have to go through committees, agreement was not quick to obtain. So, certain issues, that they KNEW they wanted to have in the Constitution, were postponed so that the foundation document could be sent around to the States and be approved.

I don’t know if the Bill of Rights, ratified as a group of Amendments on December 15, 1791, had an internal order of importance. The fact that they waited for the group of ten to be ready before sending them to be ratified indicates they were all considered to be important.

But the Second Amendment is one of those ten composing the Bill of Rights. It reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution (including all Amendments) to determine the meaning behind the words. That interpretation is not unmoving and usually reflects the changes that are occurring within the country and how the words may best be interpreted in the current period. Since the Supreme Court Justices are humans, they have the inherent flaws and biases (and potential corruption) of humans, and as such may make decisions that others disagree with. But, that is their legal, Constitutional, power — to interpret what the words mean.

Generally speaking (not being a professional lawyer or historian), the Second Amendment was created based on the experiences of those writing it. They had experienced — either directly or via their ancestors’ experiences — the effects of only the government having access to weapons (and ammunition). The splitting of the clauses for “a well regulated Militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has created a lot of the discussion, changes in interpretation, and political divides about the Second Amendment.

There has been little argument (as far as I have heard) about the “well regulated Militia” part. Each State was to continue to have their own state militia (now called the National Guard) independent of the Federal government and under the control of the State government. The relationship between the Federal government and state government’s control is presently an area of active discussion in the Supreme Court. (To me, it seems pretty clear — but it isn’t my right to make a decision.)

The part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is the portion that has — over the past 50 years (not very much before that) — been debated and politicized. Does it apply only in connection to the “well regulated Militia” (the primary interpretation until the 1980s) or is that a separate, but equally weighted, protection within the Amendment? (Once again, I have my opinion — but not the right to make a decision.)

If people kill people, what is special about guns?

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. AGREED. But does anyone really think that someone could kill 500 people in 5 minutes with a butcher knife?

Guns make it EASY.
Guns remove the time possible for second-thoughts.
Guns reduce the time for potential defence.
The AR-15 has only the remotest resemblance to a Brown Bess musket muzzle-loader used during the time of the writing of the Second Amendment.

And yes, there are other means of mass murder available — chemicals, biological weapons, arson, nuclear and conventional bombs, and so forth. But they aren’t as convenient, or easily available, as guns.

Where does gun control come into play?

Here we come to another area of the division of powers allocated by the Constitution. Congress (NOT the Executive branch) can make laws to clarify aspects of law and the Constitution — subject to the potential judgement of the Supreme Court (which can decide if a law is valid or not, primarily based on the Constitution). So, it can make so-called “gun control” laws to REGULATE access to weapons and ammunition. It cannot forbid access but it can regulate, and control, access — subject to the agreement of the Supreme Court.

“They want to get rid of all of the guns”. FALSE. Very, very few people want to totally eliminate guns. There are various legitimate uses for guns such as hunting and competitions, and (unfortunately) self-defence. The idea that a group of people “want to take your guns away” is a falsehood (lie) that is very convenient for politicians, or profit-oriented private groups, to repeat over and over. Like other “big lies”, they expect that if it is repeated without end people will believe it is true. So, it goes into campaign speeches and bumper stickers. But it isn’t true.

It IS true that a large number of people would like gun ownership limited. They want gun ownership limited to people who

Are trained in the use and safety of guns
Are not criminals
Are not nuts (I use the technical term here)

The definition of, and requirements for, the above areas are the areas to focus on for discussion.

It is true that any restriction, no matter how reasonable, will delay the ownership and use of guns by people who meet the above criteria. Such a delay may be irritating to those who qualify but help in keeping all of us safe.

So areas of discussion apply to the above characterization of a qualified gun owner.

What kind of training is required? Should there be tests involved with granting gun ownership? Who should create these tests? Who should administer them? What is required for safety? Another test or mandatory equipment (gun locks, vaults, etc.)"?
How is the lack of a criminal record determined? Not all states communicate information to federal, or other state, bureaus or administrators. What types of infractions should disqualify?
What is “nuts”? A person undergoing, or who has undergone, therapy may be more sane and rational than someone who has never approached a counselor, psychiatrist, or psychologist. Some internal instabilities may be fully invisible. Should ranting on social media count?

Some of my own thoughts in the area of training in use and safety.

Personally, I think that we should look to the example of Switzerland. Although I do not agree that every citizen should be required to serve in the military, I do agree that every person who has a gun, to be potentially used, should be trained.

A week long course in use of the weapon, cleaning, dismantling and re-assembly, and movements under active fire — very similar to U.S. military training — should be required. Use of a gun is not limited to being able to point and shoot. Decisions about shooting need to be made calmly and quickly. This is especially hard for people totally unused to having weapons fired near, or around, them.

Switzerland requires use of a gun vault in every home. These are not tiny tin boxes — the vaults are similar to bank vaults in the U.S. A home invader in Switzerland will never use the weapons present in the house. A child will never pick up a gun and shoot their sibling.

Summary

There are many politicians and profit-oriented groups who try to move disasters and tragedies immediately to “thoughts” and “prayers” which may have some type of good behind them — but which do NOT directly address the problems. We won’t reach any type of approach to the problem without discussion. Discussions are squashed by lies about what groups of people believe. Within the United States, with 342 million people, we may have up to 342 million ideas about what can, and should, be done.

The first step is discussion. Speaking. Listening. Understanding. Replying. and back to Speaking again.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Vice Wars: Supply supports demand. Why do we continue to ineffectually attack supply rather than demand?

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Tue, 30 Dec 2025 20:52:00 +0000

Vices — desires that are considered unacceptable by society (or parts of society). Such vices include drugs (alcohol, opioids, tobacco, …) and personal interactions (prostitution, gambling, …)

A basis of capitalism is the idea of supply and demand. Although the United States is an extremely strong proponent of capitalism (and, at present, unrestrained capitalism) this reality seems to be easily forgotten.

As long as demand exists, people will find ways to meet it with supplies. As soon as the Eighteenth Amendment was passed in 2019 (and, later, with additional enforcement provided by the Volstead Act), groups and individuals started determining ways to continue to meet the demand for alcohol. Alas, there is a difference between illegal commerce and legal commerce. By definition, meeting the demand for something illegal is a criminal activity and, thus, requires weakening of, and removal of, any obstructions that might impede the delivery of supplies for that demand.

In that period, the continued demand built up the strength of organized crime and filled their coffers. It also created holes in government and enforcement via corruption and, as often possible with humans and their weaknesses, blackmail and extortion. All in all, the period of Prohibition was one of the strongest supports of organized crime within the US (and, to an indirect degree, the rest of the world) in history. Yet it was all following the principles of capitalism.

When the Twenty-First Amendment was passed in 1931, it was done as a reluctant admission that Prohibition not only didn’t work but was a huge impetus for crime and corruption. The “temperance” movement continued to exist (and still does to some extent) but the majority said “no more”.

So, with that flagrant example of the inability to both support capitalism and, at the same time, fight against capitalism (but only in areas defined as unwanted — without removing the demand), the United States would surely have learned its lessons?
It would admit that supply and demand can be manipulated but not eliminated?
It would observe that making the supply illegal does not affect demand but only hurts the surrounding infrastructure by continuing the supply outside, and through, the law?

No. It is rare for groups of humans to adequately remember, and learn, from history. We see that over and over and over.

And now we see the consequences of the continued folly of this fight against capitalistic principles, Rather than increase efforts, and support, to REDUCE demand (which immediately reduces supply, prices, and competition) — we continue to fight the supply side. Although we have yet to see any evidence that current attacks are even associated with the supply-side of fentanyl trade, we know that it will not work against any potential fentanyl problems.

So, why does it continue? Attacking the supply side, in itself, increases profits.

By making it more difficult to bring supply to the demand, the price goes up and the profits go up for the suppliers.
It adds jobs to the economy — to attempt suppression of the supply.
With the increased profits received by the suppliers, they can give back money to politicians and enforcement officials to keep anti-vice laws in effect and to create the supply line holes which are useful for their business. Also known as corruption and misdirection.
The actions of “attacking the supply side” can be used as camouflage, or distractions, for other political, or economic, purposes. Such as the current attacks on (totally unproven) “fentanyl supply” from Venezuela.
It can give the appearance that something is being done to reduce the amount of the vice (whatever vice it may be).

Attacking the supply side creates great profits (and jobs within both enforcement and criminal production). The fact that these profits are counter-productive to reducing demand, and support corruption and crime, is “beside the point”.

To reduce vices, reduce demand. So simple, so hard.

[ NOTE: In cases where unwilling people are involved, there are laws about kidnapping, extortion, rape, blackmail, theft, battery, assault, and so forth ]

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

There's no Such Thing as a Small Role: Everyone, and every action, is important so let's aim for positive actions

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Tue, 23 Dec 2025 18:46:00 +0000

My birth certificate lists the professions (at the time) of my parents. My father was a roughneck and my mother was a waitress. And I am quite proud of both of them. When you think about people, and what they do, sometimes it is useful to think about life without them. Not quite in the same manner as poor old George in “It’s a Wonderful Life” but from a functional view.

Enter a restaurant and there is no one to take your order and no one to serve your food or clean up after you have left for the next person. Oh sure, there are places to eat where you perform each of those roles — and that is okay if you expect it. But it isn’t the same experience. Take it one step farther and whisk the cook(s) out of the kitchen and move them to someplace else. Now you not only order your own food but you have to cook it. There’s a bit of assistance in that, presumably, the “restaurant” has supplies on hand and the means to cook things but it’s not a very long step from cooking at home.

I have to admit that I can only imagine a roughneck at his, or her, work. I can look, and have looked, up the job on Google. I know that they do much of the hard, “dirty”, (often dangerous) work around an oil well but that’s not the same as actually being part of the crew. They do the physically demanding tasks like handling heavy pipes and tools, and maintaining drilling equipment. They also drive, and direct, heavy machinery. It is hard to imagine an oil well created without a crew of roughnecks (risking their necks, fingers, and more) on the job. About the closest I come to such work is having driven Caterpillar® tractors on my summer job at the wheat farm.

I have done quite a few types of jobs throughout my life — not counting the myriad tasks associated with being a house husband. If I had never rogued a wheat field, the wheat might have had too high of a percentage of contamination — decreasing the price, and income, for the farm. If I hadn’t done my job as a donut baker, then where would the donuts have come from to ease the load of many a person on their way home from work? Perhaps without my weavings, someone’s life would have been that slight bit less pleasurable? I don’t know but I do know that there was some measure of difference, and need, for the tasks that I have done in my life.

As I worked in various corporate offices — from a Computer Science department in a university (Kansas State University, to be precise) to work at Bell Labs and other places, it became obvious where the true needs, and values, came from. When the department head was gone for a week travelling, did it make any difference to the life of the people working in the offices and labs? No, not that much. If they were gone for a month or more I certainly hope that it would have made a difference. But have the executive assistant be gone with a cold for a couple of days and things literally ground to a halt. No one even knew how to do the things that were needed to keep the building functional.

As you meander through your days, especially at this time of enhanced gratitude and hope, pay attention to the folks around you and what they do for you and what they do around you. Step back a moment. What would life be like if they didn’t exist? Likely a worse place. So, acknowledge them, and thank them, before they “disappear”.

Let’s not just say everyone is important — let’s act like everyone is important.

Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, Blessed Chanukah, and Happy Holidays to all!

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Insecurity, Corruption, and Democracy: You may be able to have one without the other, but insecurity certainly fosters corruption

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Sun, 14 Dec 2025 17:52:00 +0000

There is a concept called baksheesh in the Middle Eastern world (it also exists elsewhere). It can refer to positive actions such as charitable giving or a non-European type of tipping. In these cases it is voluntary (though requests may be persistent and forceful). But the other side of the word is the negative side — the forceful, requisite (but not always openly stated) giving for corruption and bribery. In this newsletter/blog, I will focus on the latter.

From the viewpoint of those who have had the good fortune to have been raised, and lived, in a society where even the poor have some place to turn, this forced giving for corruption or bribery seems very bad — a multiple type of corruption. Within many economically poorer cultures, it is just an aspect of life — like having to put a stamp on a letter before mailing it.

There is a large correlation between corruption and bribery and being part of a society with large income discrepancies. A few rich, many poor, and many poor that don’t see (a viewpoint that may be true) a path to non-poverty other than making use of their position to get what economic, and further leverage, they can.

In such societies, getting such civil positions is a huge achievement in itself. Loyalty and connections are much more important than ability or qualification. The position may not include salary or benefits. Such is the role, and requirement, of baksheesh within the system. Why tax all for paying reasonable salaries and benefits for the bureaucracy and civil servants? Force those using such services to “pay as they go”. And if some must pay more, and possibly pay in “coin” other than money, that is part of the economic game.

When people think about democracy, they often think about voting. People vote for, or against, certain issues or people. In the case of representative democracies (the majority of global democracies), they are actually voting for, or against, people who will represent their views — they do not vote directly on issues. But democracy is closely related to egalitarianism. All people equal under the law. All people equal in access to resources. All people equal in treatment as having an innate worth.

As this is expanded, it is easy to see that egalitarianism does not co-exist well with income inequality. In actuality, income inequality is rather the antithesis of the idea of “we the people” or any other type of egalitarianism. Baksheesh, social levels, perhaps even hereditary rankings, all are at odds with democracy although there is no “pure” democracy in existence.

The “Founding Fathers” of the United States recognized that a “pure” democracy was only a goal. George Washington said “Democracy is not always easy, but it is worth fighting for.” John Jay said “Democracy is about building a society that is fair and just for all.” There are a lot of such quotes, which can be found here. The general gist is that democracy can be a great system, but it requires a lot of work, and can only be done when everyone stays properly informed and participates.

Here in the United States, we are having a lot of difficulty with the requirements. Our populace is not well informed, we consider ourselves lucky if 50% of the eligible voters actually vote, and the ability to connect with, and communicate needs to, our legislators is being strangled by an election system that overwhelmingly favors the rich. Even the highest level of the court system is badly corrupted by income inequality and the oligarchy. Baksheesh, long considered inappropriate for United States politics and economy, is becoming acceptable — or, within the current Administration, required — even though it is not called by that name. Position via loyalty. Competency is no longer required — it may even be a negative item for consideration for a position. Such is the path for making a country much worse than it has been.

We have a large number of problems in the United States that have not been properly dealt with, largely because the primary efforts have been to redirect the resources and wealth into the hands of the already excessively wealthy.

Concentration of wealth and the lack of a coherent approach to change and the future creates huge problems for the 98% iin the United States. We have three younger children in the family who cannot find jobs that will allow them to move out of the house. Two have recent bachelor’s degrees in previously marketable skills (Computer Science) and the third has been scared away from his major (secondary school english teaching) by the attacks on teachers, education, and libraries. Their friends can give them a listening ear but those friends are facing their own problems.

But it can change, and current generations are waking up to the problems that have been let slide for too long. Within the United States, that can be addressed within the primary system by making the less corrupted, and the more dedicated to the citizens, be the candidates. But it requires active involvement. As John Adams said — “Democracy is about building bridges, not walls”.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Infotainment: When pandering to predetermined mindsets is more profitable than telling the truth

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Mon, 08 Dec 2025 14:54:00 +0000

When Rupert Murdoch started Fox News in 1996, his primary motivation was to produce a profit-creating entity. The Australian-born oligarch (current estimated wealth $23.6 billion) obtained U.S. citizenship to meet the legal requirements to purchase US media outlets. And that he did — his News Corp. is an umbrella organization that controls a lot of media companies — including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and 800 companies in 50 countries.

Profit, as stated earlier, is the prime motivator. Although one of the first to recognize that creation of media news could be manipulated to encourage certain viewers and advertisers to remain loyal — which stabilizes and increases profit margins, his stance has brought other large media organizations into the same viewpoint. Profit is to be enhanced by presenting what the viewers want to see/hear/read.

Note that, although the tabloid journals (such as the National Enquirer) were present (and before that, “yellow journalism” — referring to the quick yellowing of the cheap paper used for printing of non-journalistic newspapers), Fox News was among the first to move the structure to broadcast media. It has since spread both to streaming as well as to studios theoretically “progressive” or “left”. It is further on the increase because the current Administration is penalizing, and forcing behavior, contrary to the First Amendment.

This is the definition of infotainment used within this newsletter. Presenting entertainment as journalistic information is infotainment. If you do a search on the term, you will find that the term is also used within “infotainment systems” which indicates a system (such as a car dashboard system) which can present entertainment AND information (traffic, maps, real news, …) Infotainment, such as presented within Fox News, is a merged version of sometimes journalism and often self-created stories that will appeal to the audience and advertisers.

Journalism is just too iffy. The news may reinforce the viewers preconceptions or it may counter them. Profits, and advertiser and consumer loyalty may vary. Undesirable. So, control the contents. If the real news would not appeal to the targeted audience, change it or invent new stories to supplant the true, but unappealing, news. And, if a particular set of stories seems to appeal to the targeted audience, then create more of them. Free publicity in the world of politics (anywhere, but particularly the US) is “gold” and likely was a primary reason for the outcome of the US Presidential race in 2016.

Profit is the primary goal of infotainment. But selection of the targeted audience, and subsequent invention/manipulation of the information presented, is according to the desires of the owner(s). With journalism, as done following proper standards, the news is (or should be) free of bias (as much as humanly possible). This is not a goal of infotainment and the bias will be slanted (lightly or heavily) in the direction of the opinions of the owner(s) of the studio.

What are journalism’s standards? While there is not a single definitive list, they include:

Truth/Accuracy: Journalists should ensure they report accurate information by verifying all research and facts, using reliable sources, attributing information, etc.
Independence: Journalists should act independently of political, corporate, financial, or personal affiliations that could be considered conflicts of interest.
Fairness/Impartiality: Journalists should consider every side in a story and present each piece of the story in a balanced, objective way.
Humanity: Journalists should minimize harm by being aware of the impact their words and images could have on other people.
Accountability: Journalists should hold themselves responsible; they should correct errors, listen to their audience, and provide solutions to any issues that may arise due to their reporting.

Note that “normalizing” is NOT a journalistic standard. Evil is evil. Stupid is stupid.

An infotainment channel does not require adherence to any of these standards and, with media in the control of ultra-wealthy individuals and mega corporations, the larger conduits are less and less able to believed and followed. This leaves a dilemma for consumers who WANT journalistic standards to be followed. Much smaller, independent, sources are needed but judging the adherence to standards is then left to the individual. Many will SAY they adhere to such — not all do.

I don’t have an answer — certainly not an easy answer. But, referring to an earlier newsletter/blog, it is necessary to “question everything”. Fact-check, check for references, consistency, occasional retractions (no one gets things right every time), language use. I continue to subscribe to one newsletter that proudly says “unbiased news you can trust” but the language that they use is highly biased leaving the rest of their reportage rather suspicious.

We NEED journalistic standards. We need help in examining the world. It is exhausting attempting continuous checking. But, at the present, it’s what we have.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Conspiracy Theories: Opening up secrets or removing trust ... or a bit of both?

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Wed, 03 Dec 2025 15:33:00 +0000

I have a favorite bumper sticker. I haven’t seen it for a while, but it says:

“Just Because I’m Paranoid Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Out to Get Me”

A “conspiracy theory” is generally defined as “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators”. A group of people conspire to make something happen. The group can be a political group, or an ethnic group, or even a family group (certain rich dynasties seem to attract conspiracy theories).

Just as in the bumper sticker above, it is difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory. On the other hand, there are usually “holes” in the chain of “evidence” that connects the group to the event. (That doesn’t matter to those who want to believe the theory.)

These holes include circular reasoning (X happens because of Y, Y happens because of A, A happens because or X). They include lack of proof of presence (we don’t know where Ms. Q was at the time, perhaps they were at THIS location doing that). Motivation is often connected to pre-conceived notions as to character or beliefs about what they are trying to do in more general terms. Denials cannot be true because the denials come from “the guilty parties”.

My personal feeling is that the most distinctive aspect of conspiracy theories is reverse reasoning. A person starts at the desired conclusion and the group that they want to tie to that conclusion and then start building “evidence” that connects the two. A good way of recognizing a conspiracy theory is that it usually only talks about the two end-points — the group/people and the event/conclusion. If pressed, some may be able to point to in-between logic which can then be examined. But most people passing along conspiracy theories don’t know of any (if any exists) “evidence” that the endpoints are connected.

If conspiracies never happened then they could all be dismissed without evaluation. They sound crazy so they must be crazy. Back to the above bumper sticker. Conspiracies can happen and we have all heard something of the nature “it must be true, I could never make up something that crazy”. The aspect of being unbelievable makes them more believable simply because life is unpredictable and events happen that we could never explain.

So, if a conspiracy theory MIGHT be true, why does it matter? Primarily because, most of the time, it is usually NOT true. As someone (among many) who tends to make up statistics when I don’t have anything solid at hand — I would say that 98% of conspiracy theories are not true. The exact number is likely to be wrong but it is certainly a high percentage. The reason this is so is due to the reverse logic — building up a “case” based on what we want. There are so many possible paths that can be taken, from the end to the supposed decision starting point, that having the entire logic chain being correct just fades away into unlikelihood.

And believing when it isn’t true can cause a lot of damage. It can also cause violent action based on the incorrect assumptions. Since conspiracy theories tie specific groups or individuals to the conclusion, it can be very tempting for those who have chosen to believe them to follow the short-term approach of eliminating that group or individual.

What about those few cases where it is true? Well, as the saying goes — “a broken clock is right twice a day”. If a conspiracy theory is true then the same conclusions and connections can be achieved via a more direct investigation.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Unto the Seventh Generation: short-term thinking versus sustainable life

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Fri, 28 Nov 2025 15:37:00 +0000

There are a number of First Nation quotes concerning the matter, but the most famous quote about the “seventh generation” comes from the Great Law of Peace of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy: “In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.”

This quote, and philosophy, does not apply to every First Nation, African tribe, Australian aboriginal group, etc. But the quote, inclusive of a much closer association with the land as stewards rather than possessors, does apply to many.

As part of “colonization”, a focus on economic gain, as well as power structures and control, soon dismissed, and overcame, any such far-reaching philosophy. Short-term results became a paramount value of colonial societies and it continues to be embedded in our cultures to this day.

“The seventh generation.” Right now, we have a long list of “generations” that have been named. (It used to just be “in my mother’s time” or “in my great-uncle’s time”.) Modern usage groups people into 20-year “generations”. The Generations presently talked about are the Lost, Greatest, Silent, Baby Boom, Generation X, Millennial (or Generation Y), Z (or iGen), Alpha, and Beta generations. The boundaries are specific for statistical purposes but fuzzy for self-application (such as, “I am Gen Z”).

The Millennial Generation folks (presently the largest population group) are considered to have been born in the years 1981 through 1996 and Generation Z from 1997 through 2010 (so, as of the publication of this newsletter, ages 15 through 28). Since actual decisions are difficult to pin to a specific generation (in spite of fingers pointed at “Boomers”) it is difficult to say how many generations since a decision has been made. Certainly, the Gen Z people are within the seventh generation ages to consider and, globally, Gen Z are presently saying (in less polite terms) “your decisions have screwed up our lives and we want it corrected now”. They are within that window of first generation to seventh generation and they recognize that they were not taken into consideration when the decisions, which have resulted in the current world situation, were made.

People within the earlier generations looked to the quarterly report and definitely did not look to the seventh generation. Note that it is not the ENTIRE generations that are responsible — many have actively protested against a short-term mentality — but the decision makers and those actively making the rules have done a very poor job when they planned (if there was any plan) their present with its effects on current days. With the Millennials in the plurality and the Gen Zs struggling to enter into a healthy economy, there will be much pressure world-wide to clean up the messes that have resulted.

“Messes”? What “messes”?

Climate/Ecology — short-term use for short-term benefits, with almost no long-term views, has directly led to accelerated climate change, overwhelming pollution, species destruction, and a general lessening of the ability of the planet to support us.
Economic — general resources have been encouraged to be concentrated into the hands of the few as the goal of some type of “game” and the world is left with millions of people lacking food, clothing, education, security and realistic hopes for the future.
Education — Many in the past have said that our children, and their education, is of the greatest importance. But there has been no follow-through with the provision of adequate resources and support for needed for proper education. In the US there is a majority of adults with the equivalent of less than a fifth grade reading level. The education system is currently left to rely on those who steadfastly look beyond their own welfare and needs in order to try to fill in positions for teachers and librarians in overpopulated schools and classrooms.
Divisiveness — based on economic and power interests, countries and people have been deliberately encouraged to compete against each other for dwindling resources rather than collectively to improve conditions.

Much damage has been done, and there is a lot of anger, but if we can collectively use that anger to create healthier paths to the future, life can truly become the “better place” toward which politicians say we are moving toward.

Culture shifts are very difficult but they are even more difficult when not attempted. It is up to all of us to strive for a change that reaches for, and creates, a better future.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Time: Flexible, inconstant, and subjective

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:43:00 +0000

“Does anybody really know what time it is?” As I progress to complete my 68th year and start on the 69th, it is hard to look at it all and ask “where did the time go?” There are some years, days, and events that seem to be (recognizing that memory is a tricky thing) crystal clear. And there are other segments that I have no recollection of. I do know that everyone around me keeps getting younger and younger.

But the song that hits me hardest is “Time in a Bottle” by Jim Croce. Change is an absolutely unavoidable aspect of life. So, if you take a “snapshot” at any period of time, you will be entering into a unique set of circumstances. Perhaps your parent, or child, is no longer around and you want to be able to spend more time with them — to retreat to that time period that was preserved. Perhaps it was before the development of television and the era of radio and the stage was leading the way. Freezing time does no good but being able to go back into a specific set of circumstances can allow new decisions and new paths. As an optimist, one could always hope that “this time” it would be better.

Time is part of the way our minds interact with our physical environment. For some cultures, it is perceived differently than for other cultures. For some, the perception of time is highly structured with everything done in its segment and all to be done exactly as designed. For others, “in a while” may mean anything from five minutes to five days. Neither is right, neither is wrong.

What about those who believe they can see directly into other parts of the “time stream” — the past and future? As is true of many things in life, such cannot be “proven” one way or another. Comparing time to the realities of entropy in physics, time should be a single direction and happen at a (averaged) constant rate. But, locally, it is possible to reverse entropy. For a specific contained situation, would it possible to reverse time? Great for speculation, not so great for coming to conclusions.

We are all aware that (even for highly structured cultures) our perception of time can slow down or speed up. I have not yet been in a death-threatening situation so I cannot speak about “seeing one’s life go by” in a few moments. But some do report such. I was in a car accident once upon at time and the time seemed to go very slowly but — at the same time — I was unable to do anything to change anything. I was trapped in a slow time bubble. On the other hand, unless I spend the time meditating, time can seem to extend a lot while I am waiting for something I anticipate.

I have always been a fan of “the Flash” superhero character. You may have noted that his speed is a matter of relativity. He goes fast, everything around him goes slowly. Unlike my situation above, he IS able to do things within his accelerated time bubble. An unresolved question for him is whether his time in the accelerated time bubble subtracts from his lifeline in the regular time world.

And so we go — into methods of time preservation. Cryogenics anyone? In this situation, you have had your body placed into very slow, very cold, circumstances — you continue your life as if in a very slow bubble. You shouldn’t age. But no one is completely certain that you can be brought back to normal time. If you are successfully revived, it is a type of time travel — in one direction only. Potentially the longest preservation is also part of changing time scales. Digitalization of the mind is presently fantasy but, if possible, it would lead to time scales of nanoseconds instead of seconds. Better have a hobby to stay busy during those LOOOONNNNGGG periods of inactivity.

Tick, tick. Tock, tock.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

The Big Lie: It's still a lie -- so how do we get people to stop believing?

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:40:00 +0000

“The Big Lie” is often referred to nowadays. Do they mean THE BIG LIE (Capital letters, bold)? No, that’s not quite it. Lies are common (too common) within society. Many times they are used for “social convenience”. Do you want to go out with me on Wednesday — “no, I have to wash my hair” (lying to save themselves embarrassment for saying “no”). Do you like this dress on me — “certainly, you look great” (but it really doesn’t, so you obtain short-term peace by saying “yes” even though long-term it is not be helping them). Other times, a lie is to avoid punishment or embarrassment. Of course, a pathological liar doesn’t truly know what is true or false (and doesn’t care). Pathological liars can pass “lie detector” tests because they believe whatever they say.

No, a Big Lie is something that is unreasonable, not to be believed, outrageous. But, it keeps getting repeated — over and over and over. Many (most?) people will eventually start thinking “it keeps being repeated, maybe there is some truth to it”. This is related to “if there is smoke there must be a fire” (perhaps smoke bombs hadn’t been invented yet). And a subset of those people will start thinking “it’s said so often it must be true”. This type of brainwashing can occur even when it is the same, unreliable, person who is the only one to keep repeating the falsehood.

If a Big Lie must be repeated many, many times to become part of the unbelievable part of your world then why would anyone continue to listen to such lies (while they still recognize them as lies)? One possible reason is that they WANT it to be true and want someone to convince them. Another is that they are “amused” by it — until it starts feeling like something to believe and be angered about. One more reason is that many people (and I am not fully not guilty) tend to “leave the channel on” — they will continue to watch/listen/gather around some television program/stream/radio broadcast that they are used to using.

The Big Lie has certainly been around for a long, long time. It is parallel to that of hunting blinds used by duck hunters. A duck hunter will find a place with ducks around and then they will build a shelter. The shelter shouldn’t be glaring but it doesn’t really have to be hidden. At first, any ducks (or other animals that are to be targeted) will be afraid of the shelter — being new in their environment. Each successive day, they get more accustomed to it. But, at some point, they become used to it. They accept it as part of the environment. What was unusual is now normal. And the guns come out.

Once a Big Lie has been accepted, it is very difficult to get rid of. It is now part of “normal”. Once outrageous and unbelievable, it is now everyday knowledge. A new identity has been formed which incorporates the illogic of the Big Lie. It can only be removed by methods similar to installing it in the first place or using the various methods for “deprogramming” or “debrainwashing”.

There are a couple of defenses against Big Lies. Being solid with yourself is the biggest help — as it helps a person in many different ways and not just for resistance to Big Lies. Be comfortable with yourself, appreciate yourself, accept that your values are of importance. Alarm bells will ring louder if you are hearing from a solid place.

The second is an old bumper sticker cliché. “Question Authority”. Actually, question everything. This is particularly unpopular with schools below the college level. Why? Well, there are conspiracy theories that I cannot disprove (very few things can be absolutely disproved) that say it is to indoctrinate students into particular mindsets. A less drastic interpretation is that questioning takes more time. Time and energy are scarce resources for our overworked and undersupported teachers. If people are trained to just accept, less time and intervention are needed to get the students to approach things as desired.

In most universities, the opposite is typically true — questioning, research, and analysis are encouraged or even required. This is why “conservatives” firmly believe that universities are “liberal” — because they are encouraged to question. And it is a reason why “liberals” are hard to get to focus on a common effort. “Conservatives”, who are trained to obey and not investigate, are much easier to direct in common effort.

People reading George Orwell’s novel 1984 (or “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis) once wondered how could this ever happen. Currently, we have been watching it unfold. It can happen slowly. The anecdotal frog in the pot can be boiled alive if the heat is turned up slowly.

It is up to all of us.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Branding: It stands for something -- but that something can change. Always examine beyond the brand name.

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Thu, 06 Nov 2025 16:44:00 +0000

Brands are a word that get tossed around a lot currently. What is a brand? At the foundation, a brand is something that gets associated with something else. A brand on a cow identifies which ranch the cow belongs to.

Nowadays, we refer to brands with less physical types of associations. When we are in the presence of others at business situations, we are supposed to have our “elevator pitch” prepared such that we can concisely wrap up the primary characteristics that we want to have the listener associate with our name. A LinkedIn profile will do similar things and, although not usually called a brand, a CV or resumé is basically an extended brand.

Manufacturers, or distributors, of products want to associate a brand name with a set of qualities. Although some physical qualities are part of the package, it is usually more a matter of feelings to be associated with the brand name. Brand WHOZIT is associated with excitement, reliability, quality, etc. Naturally, such companies want only positive attributes associated with the brand. There have been instances over time when negative attributes have become connected to a brand name and the company has been unable to disconnect those attributes from the brand. At that point, the brand is “retired” and no longer used. The word “Edsel” has become a generic name for a product (possibly even a good product) which has gathered negative feelings associated with the brand. You don’t want to produce an Edsel.

Brands can also be associated with people. That is the point behind various “branding” exercises. Beyond the elevator pitch, people may want to become the person you “go to for xxxx”. Certainly, on business social media such as LinkedIn, that is a very important part of interactions.

It was something that I lacked during the short period when I was an independent contractor. It is very difficult to create a brand when one is interested in, and produces, more-or-less anything unless the name, in itself, creates the brand. A brand focuses attributes and it is preferred that those attributes are seen as distinct from other brands. Sometimes a “brand” is a person’s name. Bill Gates is a brand — based on his life, and corporate, history. Steve Jobs is a brand as is Beyoncé. If someone talks about a “Steve Jobs” type of person, you immediately have an idea (correct or not) as to their attributes.

Positive attributes and associations are best. Negative associations are bad but politicians recognize that people do not remember details very well or very long. Thus, “there is no such thing as bad publicity”. Name recognition is very important when you approach the ballot or are examining products on the shelf.

One important aspect of brands is that they are sometimes given more importance than the “interior”. My Aunt and Uncle were very loyal to a US electronics brand. They would buy Brand YYYY without even looking at comparable products. They were the type of consumer that manufacturers LOVE. Later (in the 1960s) the brand name, and product line, was sold to another company which wasn’t even in the US. Quality and design went down (a sold brand doesn’t necessarily become worse upon being sold — but this one did). Product reviews were bad and my Aunt and Uncle ended up returning a few products. But still, they continued to buy Brand YYYY. They still didn’t consider competing products.

A product brand may also be registered with a trademark to prevent others from using the same name for that same product category. This is not a clear safeguard as it is possible to have the brand be so popular that the brand becomes almost synonymous with the product description — called genericization. For example, Bayer lost the use of Aspirin as a trademarked brand because Aspirin became a common replacement name for acetylsalicylic acid. (It later did trademark the double word “Bayer Aspirin”).

A brand, with positive recognized attributes, is very useful for a company or an individual. Is it useful for the individual making their decision according to the brand?

Perhaps. It can reduce the effort needed to find a qualified person or product. BUT, it does NOT eliminate “checking under the hood”. Assume that you always buy trucks manufactured by DDDDD. There is a parking lot of trucks to choose from. You choose the DDDDD truck without examining it or comparing to the others. You get into the truck to start the engine and it doesn’t start. It doesn’t even make a noise. You get out and look under the hood. No engine. Whose fault is that? Whose responsibility is that?

You can certainly validly complain about misdirection in advertising. But truly, do you expect a company to say “We proudly sell DDDDD trucks but we no longer include an engine with the purchase”? Either they bought the brand name and product line because they recognized how much the name could reduce their PR expenses or they had had the brand name for a long time and relied on its historical value. Most will try to maintain the value associated with the brand. Perhaps they will not go so far as to stop including an engine. But it may no longer be their focus as a company. Quality can decline.

You, as a consumer, are responsible for evaluating a product, person, or political candidate. A brand name may be of use as a starting point but it is always appropriate to redefine the quality, and value, of that brand name as you examine products.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Pandora's Box: Hope always remains

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Tue, 28 Oct 2025 13:47:00 +0000

Most everyone has heard of Pandora’s Box (it should really be referred to as Pandora’s Jar) but the details are not always that clear. In Greek Mythology (and myths are those stories that help to explain the world to the surrounding society), Pandora was the first woman created by the gods. They gave her lots of positive attributes, each according to the strength and power of each individual god. They also gave her a sealed jar which was to be kept unopened (does this sound a bit like an apple in a garden?). Since curiosity is one of the prime emotions of humanity, that forbiddance was only an enticement to see what was inside the jar. When she opened up the jar, the evils of humankind leapt out into the world … but hope remained.

The story continues to carry force just as humanity continues to have imagination and curiosity as a basic aspect of our personalities (not for everyone, but for many). In particular, humans seem to be fascinated with technology. Or, at least, advances in technology are the ones most honored by society. There are certainly those who work on philosophical, spiritual, meditative, or interrelationships that could make even more of an effect upon society if society were open to their movement and growth.

And there we have the struggle. Oh, it is not a precise “them versus us” type of struggle. But, since technological progress can often be inserted within the economy and, thus, “valued” in monetary units it is most often valued above progress in behavior and humanity. And that is sad.

Almost every (perhaps every) technological advance can be used for the improvement of humankind or for the advancement of a small subset of humankind. Going from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age allowed for better cooking utensils, better diet, and general tools to be used for art and construction. It also allowed for more efficient weapons. The same holds for the movement from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age.

Perhaps, if the evolution of technology went hand-in-hand with the evolution of society, life would always improve with each step (forward or backward? A matter of opinion). I don’t know if that will ever be known as it has yet to happen, in my limited knowledge.

During the age of the Luddites in the early 1800s, the technological step was towards automation. The displacement of skilled labor was a huge strain upon the populace and, since the general society did not recognize, and allow for, this change it was a matter of great concern to many — many who did not have monetary, or societal, influence. In such a situation, groups of people often fall back to violence even though they know that such actions will not have a long-term positive effect.

Two hundred years later, we have yet to fully absorb the changes to society brought about from automation. And now we have a useful generative AI inserted into our society. Understood well by general society — no. Understood, and utilized optimally by general industry — no. Societal effects upon the general population researched and worked with for a gradual, and less painful, shift in society — no.

But we will continue to move forward. The technology cannot be “put back into the bottle”. We could learn from the past and research the general societal and economic effects from such technology but will we? Ah, that is up to all of us — and that does not give us good odds on the results.

So, here comes AI “out of the bottle”. It is causing turbulence and will cause more (just how much is yet unknown) along with economic displacement. As is true of other technologies, there are “two edges”. But, as is also true of prior technologies, there has been no concerted effort to prepare for the shift in society, jobs, and integration with other factors which will be caused by the introduction of generative AI (and, it shall be even more difficult with more generalized AI in the future). Perhaps, somewhere, there exists an authoritative group that deals with serious interactions between technology and people — but, instead, we keep getting political and profit-based incursions into public decisions.

We can do much, much, better — and we need to do such.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Does it Matter: If a positive meme that streams through the Internet "true"?

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Thu, 23 Oct 2025 14:44:00 +0000

As is true of most of us, I have too much data moving through my desk and life. I need to find some method to reduce but I am alway concerned that I may stop something that I needed to learn. For example, sometimes a little gem comes through. A story about someone doing something for, or with, some other person and group and I end up with tears rolling down my cheeks. Sometimes, I find it hard to breathe for a bit. Then, considering how much information comes into my world each day, I find that sneaky little question rising in my mind. Is it true?

And today, in full force, I answered very loudly “DOES IT MATTER?”.

This is only about positive anecdotal material that drifts around on the web.

People have told stories since they were able to talk with one another. There have been people especially gifted (or, possibly, in a family line of historians/storytellers for the tribe) in the art of remembering and helping others to understand and remember. These stories — sometimes turned into myths — have helped us to create our cultures and our customs and traditions. They help to mold us into what we want to be — and what we want our children, and their children, and our children’s children’s children, …

There has also always been the person who seems to gather up all the current news, good and bad, about the community and, possibly, other communities and feels that it is their duty to “share” this information with everyone they meet. It used to be around the public facilities, perhaps a community fire, where a small group gathered regularly. Then it became around other institutions — the backyard fence, the barbershop or styling salon, the water fountain. If the community was fortunate, the individual (shall we call them the “gossip”?) was not deliberately mean or likely to create false information. If not fortunate, the community was not as healthy as it might have been.

Such face-to-face passing of information continues as a personal parallel to the role of the storyteller. But, in our “modern” age, the anonymous memes of the Internet have taken the role of gossip (or town crier) up a couple of quantum steps. Faster, more penetrating, quickly spread, anonymous (and very hard to attribute), and easily fabricated. We have only entered into the very scary, and hazardous, world of the easily fabricated deep fakes. I shudder.

The role of these memes can supplant the role of gossip but they can also bear the burden of storyteller and archivist. These positive anecdotes, that build upon our desired values, can be of great benefit to both individuals and societies. We can all break down and cry with happiness, or support, or bereavement. They can help us to be our best selves. And it doesn’t matter if they really happened because they are like halloween costumes for the archetypes of our society.

As briefly mentioned, with the light of angels there can also be the shadows of demons.

Do we feed the good within us or the bad?

It is up to us to decide what we want to allow to enter.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Helplessness: One approach to dealing with it is ...

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Fri, 17 Oct 2025 15:00:00 +0000

Band together.

A person alone has so much to do to overcome the feelings of helplessness and to accomplish the desired goal. But two can mutually support. A group can have strength. A large group can make themselves heard. And a swelling of the masses can truly break out in song of “We Shall Overcome”.

It seems to be a problem of swelling importance with so many issues facing us. A knowledge, and understanding, of history may be of some help with that. Does knowing that others have faced such issues fend off helplessness — or does it reinforce it knowing that the foundational issues have yet to find an enduring solution?

I believe that there are people in the world who have never experienced feelings of helplessness. There are those who have abundant resources such that any situation can be dealt with before it becomes an actual problem that has a potential for feelings of helplessness. Someone who always has more than enough money doesn’t feel helpless upon being presented with debt or a bill — and their children may be raised such that they don’t even understand the concept. They may feel complete amazement that there is someone who does not have the resources to pay for a happy meal. It’s the (not an accurate historical quote) “let them eat cake” situation. And other problems can be delegated.

There are people who are emotionally isolated from the world — psychopaths. They are fully focused on themselves and the concept of anything they cannot do is not possible.

But, the vast majority of us do feel helpless about things at times. And the rich probably do have their own set of problems — I’m just not qualified to say what they might be.

There is a seductive aspect to helplessness. “No one can blame me if I cannot do it, I am helpless”. It is certainly much easier to do nothing (though it may have both direct, and indirect, adverse effects). And there is a balancing point of any friends or acquaintances being supportive of you — or being enabling of your helplessness.

The first step away from helplessness is to become aware of resources to allow progress away from problem areas. Helplessness and depression are often found together so being presented with a list of resources is not sufficient. The person feeling helpless must be able to recognize that they can proceed with finding the resources. And the potential for feelings of helplessness seems to increase each year, especially as more and more resources are concentrated into the control of so few.

But it is possible. Becoming aware of resources (and escaping the vortex of depression) may need exterior pressure. Certainly, if not mandatory, knowing that others are willing to help you with (at the least) knowledge and information is of great help.

There may be areas where it is not possible to reach your goal but feelings of helplessness are more associated with lack of hope, or potential, about getting to your goal rather than actually arriving at the goal.

After becoming aware of resources, it is a matter of using those resources. Filling out forms, paying fines, taking courses, understanding the bureaucratic labyrinths. These are examples of resources and how they can be used. Sometimes they don’t work — sometimes due to corruption or ineptness. You find the appropriate bureaucratic approach and the other party doesn’t follow their own rules. It happens. But remember that overcoming helplessness is more of gathering the energy to make the attempt and not that of arriving at the goal.

Togetherness enables hope.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Status Quo: Another Opiate for the Masses OR Why the Frog doesn't Jump

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:51:00 +0000

“Don’t Rock the Boat”. “If it’s not (too badly) broke, don’t fix it”. “If we leave it alone, it will get better on its own”. As far as the last one goes, it comes true just often enough that we feel as if it might be reliable (it isn’t).

The Status Quo is so very seductive. In the short term, it requires the least effort. And, especially in the United States, we have been encouraged to always think about the short term. In conjunction with “instant gratification” and “adjusted grade scales” and “adjusting to decreasing attention span” (rather than working to increase focus and attention span). Especially in the US, we have been encouraged (over the years) to rely more and more on the status quo and to feel like there is nothing we can really do. Don’t Rock The Boat.

“Status quo” indicates a stasis — lack of change. But that is almost never possible. While we live, we are under constant change. Breathe in. Breathe out. Heart pumps in. Heart beats out. Food goes in. Other stuff comes out. If mobile, we are in one place then in another. It’s the same with society. “Status quo” is still a matter of constant change. BUT it can be a devolving system where, under some agreed upon set of values, the majority of things get worse — or (seems not sufficiently often) the majority of things get better. Keeping the status quo refers to the lack of initiative to attempt to keep the direction of change in motion.

What’s wrong with expending the least effort? What is wrong with leaving the boat moving along as it floats along (even if it is heading in the wrong direction)? There is a quote from Bill Gates about “hire the laziest person and they will figure out the fastest, easiest way to do things”. But that saying does NOT exclude a requirement for doing well. There is nothing wrong (and many things right) to find the easiest, most efficient, resource conserving way to do things IF we are doing it for a “better” goal.

Most of us who have gone through the school systems (I can only speak for the US but I suspect that it is in the textbooks of much of the world) have heard the story about the frog in the kettle of water. As long as they are initially in the water when it is cool, they will stay in it even as the water gets hotter and hotter — eventually cooking them. I have heard some things recently that say the story is anecdotal and not based on real experiments. But, accurate or not, the idea still applies. People are used to allowing things to slowly get worse. Don’t Rock The Boat.

The U.S., and the world, are showing the long term evidence of looking towards the short term rather than the long term. The ocean is getting warmer and warmer acting as a heat sink for energy storage. That stored energy can allow events to be much more energetic — which is the common aspect disguised within an outer envelope. More energy, stronger storms. More energy, colder cold fronts. More energy, warmer warm fronts. More energy, more frequent and severe floods. More energy, more frequent and severe droughts.

But we don’t have to look at the biggest picture (the world) to recognize the trends towards short-term versus long-term thinking.

Over the past 70 years, the U.S. has gone from walking on the moon to a 21% illiteracy rate and 54% of the population having a reading level below what is considered appropriate for sixth graders. Don’t Rock the Boat.

Over the past 40 years, the CEOs of corporations have increased the ratio of their pay to that on the average production worker:

This data comes from the Wikipedia article. Alas, although there was a dip around 2007, the did not continue and today is worse than ever. In 2025, the AVERAGE rario is CEO pay 268 times that of the average worker. The worst ratio this year is TWO THOUSAND and ONE times that of the average worker. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. One gets even greater excess and the other struggles harder. Don’t Rock the Boat.

So what if those CEOs make so very much more pay than the people who actually create the products and generate the income and profits? Don’t they “deserve” it? They certainly do “legally”. But it is legal only because we elect millionaires and billionaires who create tax systems and loopholes and other items which benefit the millionaires and billionaires. We don’t have to do such. Don’t Rock the Boat.

In 1975, the minimum wage was $2.10 which was the equivalent of $12.77/hour in 2025 dollars. In 2009, the last year the US Federal minimum wage was increased, the minimum wage was/is $7.25 — which is the equivalent of $10.88 today. Yes, that’s right, the “increased” minimum wage DECREASED in effective money the last time it was raised. And minimum wage has not been a living wage for many years. Hard work (if a job can be found) no longer means being able to have a place to live or the ability to save towards dreams. Don’t Rock the Boat.

In 1975, minimum wage wasn’t an easy wage. But a person could rent an apartment. A person could put away something for savings towards a house or going to college. Hard work meant hope. A $42,525 house (average house in 1975) in 1975 would cost $258,595.43 today EXCEPT that the average house price in 2025 is $462,20. Yes, house prices (and house sizes) have risen much faster than wages. According to a page on college tuition inflation, college prices have gone up an average of 6% a year — leading to a current cost of three times (adjusted for inflation) that of what was needed in 1977 (the figures didn’t start at 1975). So, less money and greatly increased prices for housing and higher education. Don’t Rock the Boat.

I n the 1950-1955 era, the US had the 13th highest life expectancy. In 2010-2015, the US had the 43rd highest life expectancy. The US health system is weighed down by the inefficiencies of the pharmaceutical/health insurance systems (which pay quite good dividends and appreciation to stockholders — and even better contributions to the campaigns of legislators). Don’t Rock the Boat.

As this newsletter started, a status quo rarely is stagnant. Things change slowly or quickly. In the US, we have a group of legislators continuously pushing the balance over towards the already too-rich and away from the not-enough-to-live. And the other group of legislators is scared to push back, so “keeping the status quo” means capitulating and letting the other group push into greater and greater imbalance, and greater and greater debts, which leads to all of the lowering standards mentioned above. It’s not too surprising that anger and frustration builds up. Just a bit surprising, and very sad, that the originators of the worsening situation succeed in getting voters to support them even more.

Don’t Rock the Boat.

Forgiveness: A Gift to Myself

noreply@blogger.com (CKSummers) — Wed, 24 Sep 2025 14:18:00 +0000

Many people (not you, of course) think that forgiveness is about the other person. Someone has done, or said, something that you consider offensive or bad — and you are supposed to want to forgive them. Stepping back from this imagined situation, why would they WANT you to forgive them? They might believe that they didn’t do anything offensive or bad. They might not care that they did something offensive or bad. If they are aware, and do care, then they are very likely to be apologizing to you.

Let us assume that they have apologized to you. They are either acknowledging that they have not behaved their best or they feel there is a social need to make an apology to you. In this case, forgiveness is an acknowledgement, on your part, that they have made an apology. An appropriate response would be “I accept your apology” or, of course, “I do not accept your apology”. In this second case, if they are listening to you then their next step might either be indignation (they have done all that they can, or are willing to, do) or a request for clarification as to what more you need to hear or to be done. And so on.

But, what are the consequences of your NOT forgiving the other (whether or not they have offered an apology)? The stated, or unstated, hope is that by withholding your forgiveness their life will continue under a shadow recognizing that they have done something bad in their life. Is that realistic?

Who among us has never done something that was not as good as we would have preferred? Certainly not I. There are a handful of scenarios within my life history that I would change if I could. (And I am positive that there are other events I have done badly of which I am NOT aware.) And they HAVE affected my life because of their continued presence in my memory. They exist as a prick to my conscience to endeavor to do better in the future. That awareness of the past helps me to determine the standards that I require myself to meet. If I could place back into those places, perhaps I would have made an apology.

But life moves on. I go on to make new mistakes. I recognize that I will never achieve the goal of perfection (though, as a Quaker, it is still a self-flagellation that occurs). I do not, I cannot, allow myself to remain stuck within my past. I must live and grow.

Back to the qualities, and objectives, of forgiveness. Forgiveness as an acknowledgement may help both move on easier. But forgiveness as an acceptance may be even more important. We are not responsible to “make” them move on their journey. But acceptance can allow the “forgiver” to more easily move along. The “chains” we enact between ourselves and the past can be broken.

Forgiveness unchains us to allow us to move forward.