Friday, March 27, 2009

Catharsis

Catharsis

Catharsis: 3. Psychiatry. Psychotherapy that encourages or permits the discharge of pent-up, socially unacceptable behavior.

The other day I was wheeling my Japanese chariot down to the local Wally World to get some cheap stuff and enrich the Chinese economy. I pulled up to an intersection that was a four way stop and because the car to my left had gotten to the intersection a tad earlier than me, I waited my turn until the car on the left cleared the intersection. As the car on the left started to pull into the intersection, I noticed that a car coming from in front of me was speeding into the intersection. It at once became obvious that the oncoming car was not going to stop. The car on my left slammed on the brakes and the oncoming car almost lost control as it tried to avoid the crash. A crash was narrowly adverted, primarily because the car on my left was manned by a defensive driver and had stopped in time to avoid the smash. The oncoming car slid to a halt and the driver began to yell and scream obscenities at the car on the left. The outraged driver then got out of his car and began to make menacing advances to the person in the car on the left. He said he was going to kill the @$%#*@# that had gotten in his way. In other words, the oncoming driver had no intention of stopping at the intersection and was going to cause harm to anyone that got in his way. The menacing driver eventually got back into his car and with a departing third finger salute to everyone present, gunned his car, and went speeding back on his way. I will wager AIG’s contribution to Obama’s election campaign that you have witnessed something similar to what I have just described in that there are some people who believe they are not required to live by the rules like everyone else. In fact, the stop sign running, and other uncivil persons, can only flaunt society’s rules and get by with it because most of us do live by the rules. In other words, if we all did not behave in a civil manner, we all would be engaged in constant confrontation with everyone else, uncivil slugs included. The outcome at the intersection would have been quite different if no one bothered to obey the stop sign. Chaos and personal confrontation would most likely result and a lot of people would probably get hurt. The uncivil slugs in our society would not be able to enjoy the same carefree life afforded to them by virtue of everyone else behaving in a civil manner and obeying society’s rules. Rather simple stuff we all learned in kindergarten, right? All of this got me to thinking about a paragraph I had read awhile back about this rather simple subject, and after a search, I found what I was looking for. Arthur Schopenhauer wrote the paragraph in question and I thought you wouldn’t mind if I shared it with you.
“A number of porcupines huddled together for warmth on a cold day in winter; but, as they began to prick one another with their quills, they were obliged to disperse. At last, after many turns of huddling and dispersing, they discovered that they would be best off by remaining at a little distance from one another. In the same way the needs of society drives the human porcupines together, only to be mutually repelled by the many prickly and disagreeable qualities of their nature. The moderate distance which they at last discover to be the only tolerable condition of intercourse is the code of politeness and fine manners.”
For some reason or another, the escalading lack of civility (including the lack of politeness and fine manners) that the intersection incident dramatized, has rapidly become the norm rather than the exception in our society. Most of the readers of this piece, who happen to have sprouted a fine crop of gray hair, can fondly remember our earlier days when people went to great lengths to be polite, non-confrontational and civil to one another. I bet that you, as well as I, have speculated about the reason why this decent into uncivil social behavior began in the first place and when it all got started in the second place. I searched my memory about when this change began to occur and imagine my surprise when I discovered that the uncivil change in social behavior happened to coincide with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. At first blush, the Civil Rights Act was an attempt to correct the perceived injustice that some members of society were suffering at the hands of other members of society. Indeed, a noble cause. However, opposition to the legislating of new rights that was not in the Constitution cautioned that the Civil Rights Act was an attempt to legislate morality. Indeed, the Civil Rights Act was passed under, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to circumvent limitations on congressional power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. A clear case of the end justifying the means because what a tortured streach of reasoning that the blocking of commerce between the states could occcur because of various kinds of social discrimination that the Civil Rights Act would correct. Of course the dissenters were sweep away with a wave of an enlightened hand that reasoned that the Civil Rights Act would be a necessary Catharsis that would allow pent-up emotions about a wide range of perceived social injustices to be released after the socially downtrodden saw that it was now against the law to perpetrate all such social injustices. After the Catharsis that the Civil Rights Act enabled, voila, peace and tranquility within the body social. (Brothers and Sisters, this was the beginning of (Gasp) Political Correctness.) However, upon the second blush of cynical reality, the Civil Rights Act was, after all, an attempt to legislate morality even though morality is indeed the exclusive property of the body social, regardless if the enlightened think so or not. Consider the possibility that the Civil Rights Act formalized by law what a free civil society normally does, thus, removing the obligation from society to teach its young about the importance of politeness and civility in social behavior because the law now tends to such things. So feel free to socially misbehave all you want unless a cop stops you for violating another person’s legislated civil rights, that is. You can socially misbehave regardless of what society thinks or requires because your uncivil social behavior is merely a sanctioned Catharsis occurring. What an outstanding example of unintended consequences causing a counterproductive effect. What a cornucopia of opportunity for the scumbag lawyers.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Stimulus

Stimulus

A drunk once confided to me: The reason God created booze and brewski was so that ugly people could enjoy sex too. I really don’t know why the fellow directed his observation about ugly drunk people in my direction but I did think at length about what he apparently said in humor. You know things like, if God wanted to ensure that the planet would always be fully populated, creating booze and brewski would be an easy way to do it. You know, a sort of Divine Stimulus Program. Nevertheless, I did curtail my alcohol consumption several-fold to test the drunk’s hypothesis and to lose some weight, what the sunshine boys call a Win, Win situation. On second thought, given that the hypothesis might indeed be correct, then perhaps it could end up being a Lose, Win situation. All of this brings to mind the famous quotation attributed to Sir Winston Churchill when Lady Astor accused him of being drunk, to wit the grand man was reported to have said, “Yes, madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." But I digress. The Divine Stimulus Program to keep the planet populated got me to thinking about the Washington (Divine) Stimulus Program, you know, the one where the Government is creating money and the created money will somehow be injected into the economy which will then “stimulate” demand, which will then stimulate the economy to produce more goods, services, etc., which will stimulate the creation of jobs, which will stimulate the payment of money for labor (physical and intellectual), the payment of money for labor will then stimulate more demand for goods and services and, voila, a functioning and viable free market economy where only ruin and wreckage had once prevailed. Yeah, right. In days gone by, I was a Program Manager and I used to pitch my programs to get money in order to execute the program. The pitch was usually a view-graft presentation showing all of the elements of the program and how it would all come together, on time and within budget. Usually somewhere in the presentation things would inevitably get a little hazy on how a key element would occur (like requiring a technology that did not yet exist) and this is the place where a miracle would need to take place to make the program successful. Well in reality there are no such things as miracles and the so-called Government stimulus program requires a miracle somewhere in there to make it successful, and here is the reason why. First, there are two basic kinds of economies, a Top Down Economy (managed economy, e.g., USSR) and a Bottom Up Economy (free market economy, e.g., USA), with many variations in between. The USA has a free market economy even though with each passing day it becomes more and more a managed economy. The government intervening into a free market place by throwing artificial money into the system (the stimulus program, with more about artificial money later) transforms the functioning of the free market because the intervention is an attempt to manage the economy rather than let the free market place manage the economy. Just like you can’t really pay off a credit card with a credit card, you really can’t manage a free market place by intervening in it. If you attempt to manage a free market, you can only further disrupt the functioning of the economy. This counterproductive situation should be patently obvious even to Flim Flam Politicians. Let’s talk about money. Money is a wonderful invention by man to facilitate the functioning of an economy. Without money, we would be reduced to barter, and we all understand that an economy based upon barter would leave us stuck in the Stone Age. Real money is the medium of exchange (gold, paper certificate, ones & zeros, etc.) that we all agree has the same value as our labor, goods or property. Money relies exclusively upon the faith and trust of the people that money is as valuable as their hard work, property and productive enterprise. Real money can only be produced by productive enterprise because only real money represents real value. The Government cannot produce real money, only productive enterprise can produce real money and only real money is viable in a free market place because it alone represents real value. Government can only produce artificial money because it (the Government) is not engaged in productive enterprise in a free market economy. If the Government produces (prints or borrows) artificial money, that artificial money can only dilute the value of real money (inflation) because it (artificial money) was not produced by productive enterprise. Unless a miracle occurs, throwing artificial money into a free market economy cannot possibly grow the economy because the artificial money does not represent real value and the intervention is doomed to eventual failure. The only possible way to restart the economy and cause it to grow is to create the conditions favorable to productive enterprise. This can be done by a moratorium on business taxes, eliminate capital gains tax, provide incentives for business to do business here rather than outsourcing factories and jobs to more favorable locations. The most important change that must occur before any long term improvement can occur is that our economy must change from a 70% consumer driven Gross National Product (GNP) to a more sustainable productive enterprise GNP. So here is the situation that this Government Stimulus Intervention leaves us stuck in. We will all get drunk on artificial money, but in the morning we will be sober, and the economy will still be ugly.

Friday, March 13, 2009

The Dark Side of Knowledge

The Dark Side of Knowledge


Let’s take a walk. Let’s take a walk down my favorite walking trail that is a converted railroad bed (The Monon). Instead of mighty steel monsters belching billows of fearsome black smoke while clamoring up and down gleaming rails that caused the earth to shake and quiver as they made their way to and fro, the railroad legacy is now a rail free path with a grown-up canopy of trees and flora complete with busy critters that hardly takes notice of Nike clad feet softly treading to and fro in search of exercise and solace instead of forgotten steam engines straining for commerce and schedule. If you happen to get on the trail in the early morning, most of the indigenous critters you see are fully engaged in their business and are not in the least alarmed with the passage of fashion conscious bipedal critters aimlessly meandering to and fro along the trail. More likely than not, you will hear the absolutely beautiful clear notes of Red Cardinals birds singing away to the absolute delight of the walking and jogging bipedal creatures. I always like to think that the Red Cardinal birds are singing their beautiful song for my pleasure but I know in reality that they (the Red Cardinals) are instead sending out a warning to others of their kind to stay the hell away from their territory. Knowing this reality is the dark side of knowledge. I would rather believe that the songs the birds were singing were because the birds were happy and the singing was a declaration to all who could hear that the world is a beautiful place that merited the gorgeous notes being sprayed into the wind. I would rather believe this because it enriches my soul. But the knowledge of why they (the birds) are really singing only enriches my mind. Sometimes it is much better to have one’s soul enriched rather than having one’s mind enriched. There are many examples of the dark side of knowledge other than the whimsical example above. Take, for example, the knowledge of evolution as first detailed by Charles Darwin in his seminal book, On the Origin of Species. This knowledge of the evolution of life into more complex life, and the notion that survival of the fittest is the basis for the natural selection of those chosen to evolve, was all the intellectual rage in the time of Hitler and this knowledge became the basis for his book, “Mein Kampf”. Mein Kampf would become the political foundation for the Nazi movement that promoted the practice of eugenics to help create the master (German) race because it was believed that natural selection for evolution by survival of the fittest was as applicable to human races as it was to lower animal species. Therefore, to the Nazis, the German people were the fittest of all of the human races and elimination of inferior races and undesirable humans was only the fittest humans being naturally selected in accordance with the natural selection process described by Darwin. All of this knowledge of evolution and natural selection by survival of the fittest became the basis and justification for the murdering and killing of millions and millions of innocent people by the Nazis and German people in order to evolve into the “Master Race.” Again, the dark side of knowledge. A more contemporary example of the dark side of knowledge is the economic collapse that we are currently undergoing. Nefarious people, driven by greed, have used the knowledge of economics, finance and human behavior to concoct ruinous financial instruments in order to gain monetary advantage over others. Rather than to use knowledge to benefit all, the dark side of knowledge drove supposedly honorable people to ruin million and millions of innocent people. Other knowledge, such as how to split the atom and release the power of the universe, was first used to build a bomb in order to kill people rather than use the knowledge for a benign purpose. In this case, the dark side of knowledge may well doom us all.