The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth,
So Help you God.
It’s a matter of faith that we all believe that truth in all matters is the best course of action for the righteous as well as the secular. However, as the gray hair keeps gaining an ever-greater share of our mane that adorns our wrinkling domes, we have come to understand that there are times when the truth must be used, shall I say, judicially. Knowing how much of the truth to use in a given situation is one of the more important things that makes us quintessential Human. I am going to provide an example of the truth that will absolutely enrage some people, cause some people to question the premise that is giving rise to this truth, and yet others will try to assimilate this particular truth and become introspective and confused about the matter. Are you ready?
As source material, I am going to make liberal use of the book, Freakonomics, by the celebrated and much respected economics author, Steven D. Levitt, as well as data available from the public domain and available to all. Think back to the early 1990s. Crime was on the accent and the prediction by all of the criminologists, social and political scientists, and other such experts was that law-abiding citizens had better be prepared because by 1995 crime in the good old US of A would overtake us all and make us prisoners in our own homes. However, what happened was quite different. Instead of crime continuing to go up, it began to fall. And the fall was dramatic. By the year 2000, the murder rate had fallen to its lowest level in 50 years. What’s more, the rate of every other sort of crime was also falling in equal amounts. And this just in, the FBI announced that the overall crime rate is still falling as of 2009. So what happened to reverse the crime rate when all conventual’s wisdom indicated that criminal activity would soar like an eagle? Like most Monday morning quarterbacks, the experts scrambled to bring forth logical reasons why this had happened and to spin the data so that their reputations would not suffer. Some of the logical reasons were, the expanding economy in the 1990s, proliferation of gun control laws, the proliferation of right to carry gun laws, progressive policing strategies, more police, cell phones, and on and on. The truth is many of these things had little to do with the falling crime rate. For example, adding more police always reduces crime but any reduction is minuscule at best. Of all of these reasons, cell phone proliferation has probably contributed the most to the apprehension of criminals, not enlightened police work, and the increased apprehension rate will somewhat effect a reduction of criminal activity by removing more criminals from the street. So what really did happen to cause the crime rate to start falling and continue to fall? OK now, get a firm grip on your outrage because the truth in the matter is that Roe v. Wade is what caused the most significant effect on the crime drop. When Norma McCorvey went and got pregnant again, she wanted an abortion because she did not want the child and she could not care for the child. Norma was a poor, uneducated, unskilled, alcoholic, drug-using 21-year-old woman who had already given up two children for adoption, and when she got pregnant again, she wanted an abortion. Problem was that it was 1970 and she lived in Texas and Texas law said it was illegal to have an abortion. The rest is history as Norma McCorvey had her name disguised as Jane Roe as her case went to the Supreme Court and in 1973 the Court held that it is a Constitutional right of a woman to have an abortion upon demand. Mr. Levitt states that decades of studies all indicate when a child is born into an adverse family environment, such as being unwanted and uncared for, that child is the most likely of all to become a criminal. So beginning in 1973, and as a result of abortion on demand, poor, unmarried, drug using, etc. teenage mothers began to have abortions in great numbers. These aborted children, had they instead had been born, would have become part of an ever-increasing pool of unwanted children who, in most likelihood, would have grow up to become potential criminals and contributed to the predicted surging crime wave of the 1990s. Of course, that did not happen. What happened instead was the unwanted children were not brought into the world, and by so doing; the biggest pool of potential criminals was eliminated. So by the time the 1990s rolled around, these aborted children that would be coming into criminal age (late teens) were not here, and as a result, criminal activity has been on the decrease ever since. The unemotional evidence is very strong that this is the truth of the matter. So, know the truth and the truth shall set you free? Well, as for myself, I really don’t know.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
EXPERTS
EXPERTS: Wisdom’s Antidote
French Prime Minster, Georges Clemenceau, is credited to have said, “War is too important a matter to entrust to military men.” The more popular paraphrase of the quote is, “War is too important to be left to the Generals.” I think I can distill millions of words about what the quote means by saying the quote relates to the problem of relying on experts, or savants, to make decisions or judgments that instead requires wisdom concerning the whole of the matter rather than specialized knowledge. All to often, activists, government, and those competing for power, uses experts to prevent full and rational discourse on a matter by insisting that only their supporting expert(s) has the definitive knowledge of the subject. A case in point; Global Warming alarmists have lined up their experts to support their position that Man is causing climate warming and insist that the science of Global Warming is settled and anyone one who believes otherwise is just a contrarian at best or an uneducated denier at worse. The truth of the matter is that climate is dynamic and responds to a whole range of physical factors, including man’s puny activities, and is just as likely to be heading for another ice age as our current warming period winds down. In other words, the science of climate change is far from being settled and listening to experts on both sides does little to bring wisdom to bear on the subject. So why are so many influential people and practically all of the world’s Governments supporting the notion that man’s activities are causing a catastrophic warming of the earth’s climate? Fellow traveler, do you recall the Snail Darter?
The Snail Darter is a small (3 inch) river fish that was discovered by environmental activist and biologist, David Etnier, in the Little Tennessee river in 1973. When Professor Etnier saw the small fish he cried, “Eureka”, because he knew he had found the means to stop construction of the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River. By invoking the National Environmental Policy Act, the lawsuit to stop construction of the dam could allege that the dam would alter the habitat of the river to such an extent that the Snail Darter would be extirpated (wiped-out) and if that happened, it would violate the Environmental Policy law. Of course you can plainly see that the Snail Darter was not really the concern of the Environmentilists, it was stopping construction of the Tellico Dam that was the real objective. In a like manner, World Governments, Socialists and One world activists had their “Eureka” Snail Darter moment when they discovered the Man caused climate warming issue because they could use the climate warming issue as a means to obtain power by using Cap and Trade to control vast areas of their respective economies. Once they had the additional power afforded by saving the Earth from man made Global warming, their real objective of enhancing centralised government power to promote a Socialistic agenda could be well adavanced. Don’t believe me? Listen to what happened when President Hugo Chavez addressed the UN Climate Change Summitt at Copenhagen recently. President Chavez was reported to say, “there was a silent and terrible ghost in the room and that ghost was called Capitalism”, he went on to further say, “Capitialism is the road to hell…lets fight against Capitalism.” When President Chavez said those things about Capitalism the room erupted in a standing ovation and the applause was deafening. Care to advance an opinion as to what the real agenda of the Climate Change Summitt was? There are probably many and varied objectives of the attendees but you can rest assured that none of the objectives had anything to do with global warming.
This is what you get when you rely on experts to define an issue. An expert has expertise in a very narrow area and is more interested in promoting his expertise than rational discussion of all of the factors affecting the issue. Those who nefariously use experts to further their objectives and agenda will more than likely engage the public’s emotions, the best emotion to use being fear, because emotion is the best enemy of rational argument. Sound familiar? So with apologies to Monsieur Clemenceau, Decisions are too important to entrust to experts.
French Prime Minster, Georges Clemenceau, is credited to have said, “War is too important a matter to entrust to military men.” The more popular paraphrase of the quote is, “War is too important to be left to the Generals.” I think I can distill millions of words about what the quote means by saying the quote relates to the problem of relying on experts, or savants, to make decisions or judgments that instead requires wisdom concerning the whole of the matter rather than specialized knowledge. All to often, activists, government, and those competing for power, uses experts to prevent full and rational discourse on a matter by insisting that only their supporting expert(s) has the definitive knowledge of the subject. A case in point; Global Warming alarmists have lined up their experts to support their position that Man is causing climate warming and insist that the science of Global Warming is settled and anyone one who believes otherwise is just a contrarian at best or an uneducated denier at worse. The truth of the matter is that climate is dynamic and responds to a whole range of physical factors, including man’s puny activities, and is just as likely to be heading for another ice age as our current warming period winds down. In other words, the science of climate change is far from being settled and listening to experts on both sides does little to bring wisdom to bear on the subject. So why are so many influential people and practically all of the world’s Governments supporting the notion that man’s activities are causing a catastrophic warming of the earth’s climate? Fellow traveler, do you recall the Snail Darter?
The Snail Darter is a small (3 inch) river fish that was discovered by environmental activist and biologist, David Etnier, in the Little Tennessee river in 1973. When Professor Etnier saw the small fish he cried, “Eureka”, because he knew he had found the means to stop construction of the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River. By invoking the National Environmental Policy Act, the lawsuit to stop construction of the dam could allege that the dam would alter the habitat of the river to such an extent that the Snail Darter would be extirpated (wiped-out) and if that happened, it would violate the Environmental Policy law. Of course you can plainly see that the Snail Darter was not really the concern of the Environmentilists, it was stopping construction of the Tellico Dam that was the real objective. In a like manner, World Governments, Socialists and One world activists had their “Eureka” Snail Darter moment when they discovered the Man caused climate warming issue because they could use the climate warming issue as a means to obtain power by using Cap and Trade to control vast areas of their respective economies. Once they had the additional power afforded by saving the Earth from man made Global warming, their real objective of enhancing centralised government power to promote a Socialistic agenda could be well adavanced. Don’t believe me? Listen to what happened when President Hugo Chavez addressed the UN Climate Change Summitt at Copenhagen recently. President Chavez was reported to say, “there was a silent and terrible ghost in the room and that ghost was called Capitalism”, he went on to further say, “Capitialism is the road to hell…lets fight against Capitalism.” When President Chavez said those things about Capitalism the room erupted in a standing ovation and the applause was deafening. Care to advance an opinion as to what the real agenda of the Climate Change Summitt was? There are probably many and varied objectives of the attendees but you can rest assured that none of the objectives had anything to do with global warming.
This is what you get when you rely on experts to define an issue. An expert has expertise in a very narrow area and is more interested in promoting his expertise than rational discussion of all of the factors affecting the issue. Those who nefariously use experts to further their objectives and agenda will more than likely engage the public’s emotions, the best emotion to use being fear, because emotion is the best enemy of rational argument. Sound familiar? So with apologies to Monsieur Clemenceau, Decisions are too important to entrust to experts.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Morality
Morality Tis Better On Thee Than Me
It’s the Holiday season and I got to thinking about the message of Love that Jesus brought to the world. Not only did Christianity make Agape Love part of the social fabric of our culture, the spiritual message promoted a kind of National honesty and culturally instilled set of ethics that enabled business and social intercourse to proceed with an inherent ease that was the envy of the world. Needless to say, science, rationalism, progressive philosophy, and a general coarsening of social and personal behavior, brought about by an entitlement mentality, greed, and all of the other deadly sins, have all combined to make things like morality and ethics seem “old fashioned” and not at all relevant to modern life. Morality has gotten all mixed up with economics at its most basic levels and prompted Steven Levitt to address morality and economics in his book, Freakonomics, to wit: “Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work—whereas economics represents how it actually does work”. The reason why morality and economics are intertwined is because Government, and everyone else, uses incentives to motivate people’s behavior for one reason or another and these incentives influence morality and economics. The classic example of morality and economics getting caught up together is the Daycare Center that began using a negative monetary incentive to address the problem of late pickup by parents. The Daycare Center imposed a $5.00 fine on parents who were up to 15 minutes late. As a result of the “negative” incentive, late pickups surged because it was easier to pay the $5.00 fine than deal with the hassle of being on time. When there was no fine imposed, morality drove the parents to pickup on time because of a desire not to impose on their friends at the Daycare Center, i.e., when the $5.00 fine was imposed, a trivial monetary value was substituted for a Morality value which relieved the parents of any moral or ethic incentive. Needless to say, if the fine imposed would have been, say, $50.00, the outcome would have been much different. So what is this thing called Morality and what are its foundations? Jonathon Haidt at www.moralfoundations.org has it all figured out, to wit:
The Foundations of Morality
1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one." 4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
As you can see, most of the foundations of morality are based upon the evolutionary values instilled by the necessity of survival. These values are becoming less and less relevant in the modern world where the struggle to survive is being mitigated by science, technology and social governance. So if you ever wondered why morality and ethics seems to be going the way of your last week’s paycheck, it may well be because science and technology, married to the ideal of socialism, is rewriting what morality and ethics are. I guess our progeny will discover what this neo-morality will be. So cherish Christianity’s message of Love as it is repeated this Christmas and perhaps the morality and ethics it portended, through the foundations listed above, will fall on fresh ears and remain relevant. But if not, then I guess its “Back To The Future” of dog eat dog. Sure is beginning to look that way, don’t you think?
It’s the Holiday season and I got to thinking about the message of Love that Jesus brought to the world. Not only did Christianity make Agape Love part of the social fabric of our culture, the spiritual message promoted a kind of National honesty and culturally instilled set of ethics that enabled business and social intercourse to proceed with an inherent ease that was the envy of the world. Needless to say, science, rationalism, progressive philosophy, and a general coarsening of social and personal behavior, brought about by an entitlement mentality, greed, and all of the other deadly sins, have all combined to make things like morality and ethics seem “old fashioned” and not at all relevant to modern life. Morality has gotten all mixed up with economics at its most basic levels and prompted Steven Levitt to address morality and economics in his book, Freakonomics, to wit: “Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work—whereas economics represents how it actually does work”. The reason why morality and economics are intertwined is because Government, and everyone else, uses incentives to motivate people’s behavior for one reason or another and these incentives influence morality and economics. The classic example of morality and economics getting caught up together is the Daycare Center that began using a negative monetary incentive to address the problem of late pickup by parents. The Daycare Center imposed a $5.00 fine on parents who were up to 15 minutes late. As a result of the “negative” incentive, late pickups surged because it was easier to pay the $5.00 fine than deal with the hassle of being on time. When there was no fine imposed, morality drove the parents to pickup on time because of a desire not to impose on their friends at the Daycare Center, i.e., when the $5.00 fine was imposed, a trivial monetary value was substituted for a Morality value which relieved the parents of any moral or ethic incentive. Needless to say, if the fine imposed would have been, say, $50.00, the outcome would have been much different. So what is this thing called Morality and what are its foundations? Jonathon Haidt at www.moralfoundations.org has it all figured out, to wit:
The Foundations of Morality
1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one." 4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
As you can see, most of the foundations of morality are based upon the evolutionary values instilled by the necessity of survival. These values are becoming less and less relevant in the modern world where the struggle to survive is being mitigated by science, technology and social governance. So if you ever wondered why morality and ethics seems to be going the way of your last week’s paycheck, it may well be because science and technology, married to the ideal of socialism, is rewriting what morality and ethics are. I guess our progeny will discover what this neo-morality will be. So cherish Christianity’s message of Love as it is repeated this Christmas and perhaps the morality and ethics it portended, through the foundations listed above, will fall on fresh ears and remain relevant. But if not, then I guess its “Back To The Future” of dog eat dog. Sure is beginning to look that way, don’t you think?
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Urban Fortification of Socialism
2000 Census Population Density USA Today 2004 Election Red/Blue Map
I invite you to look very closely at the above two maps. They are profound in their similarity. The left map is the official 2000 Census Population Density Map where the red color indicates where the highest population density is located. Of course, the concentration of red also indicates where the great cities are due to the greater population within the respective counties and so clearly indicates where the great urban centers are located. The map on the right is the USA Today 2004 election results, also down to the county level. Red represents Republican votes and in general indicates a more conservative political area. The Blue represents Democratic votes and in general indicates a more liberal political area. Now, try to overlay each map in your mind. I think you will find that the red high-density areas (urban areas) on the population density map closely correspond to the democratic, or politically liberal, areas of the 2004 red/blue map. The political importance of these maps is profound in that it clearly shows that the urbanization of America is providing an irresistible fortification of socialistic tendencies due to liberal or “progressive” thought within the body politic by virtue of the greater population and thus greater political power of the urban areas. Indeed, those who demand that the US Constitution be treated as a “living document” to support progressive or socialist dogma may well have a viable argument due to the phenomena of urbanization. Think about it. The country was mostly rural when the Constitution was ratified and rural living peoples are very self-sufficient and fearlessly independent. The Constitution, in general, codifies self-sufficiency and independence of the individual as a way to ensure personal liberty and thus prevent tyranny from gaining a foothold in Government. When people congregate into urban areas, dependence upon one another is more important than self-sufficiency, and personal independence must be moderated in order to foster social conditions that will enhance the opportunity for all to live in peace and harmony with one another. In other words, urban living promotes a more socialistic environment by the necessity of interdependence, not independence, of city dwellers. This socialistic force due to urbanization is irresistible much like a trade wind that blows due to environmental factors, i.e., a socialistic wind is blowing due to urbanization factors and it will continue to blow stronger and stronger unless a way is found to reverse urbanization, and that is not likely. Indeed, the census bureau reports that the 2000 census indicated that 81% of America’s population is now living within urban areas while the remaining 19% of the population is living in the rural areas of the country. But wait, there’s more. Just this week the United Nations announced that the World population is now 50% rural and 50% urban. What does it mean? Every good sailor will tell you that it is folly to try and change the wind because the wind will blow to wherever the wind will blow. Every good sailor will also tell you that you can set your sail to the wind and go to where you want to go regardless of the way the wind blows. Somehow we must find a way to maintain personal freedom and liberty within a more and more socialistic environment that the urbanization of America is causing. It’s time for the intellectual sailors of this country to set freedom’s sail to the prevailing socialist wind so that personal liberty will still be the destination of our progeny.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Tin Cup Man
Tin Cup Man
There once was a Tiger called Woods,
Who hit it as hard as he could,
His smile would just shine,
As he played double-time,
On many more courses than he should.
There once was a Tiger called Woods,
Who hit it as hard as he could,
His smile would just shine,
As he played double-time,
On many more courses than he should.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Ain't Got No Horse
Ain’t Got No Horse
I heard a story about an old Indian traveling across the desert with all of his worldly possessions being dragged behind an old broken-down pony and his Squaw laboriously walking alongside. An old prospector happened upon the itinerant pair, and after they each had exchanged perfunctory salutations, the prospector, with a slightly bewildered smile, asked the dignified Indian seated upon his Pony why he was riding while his Squaw was walking. The old Indian slowly looked at the prospector and then responded with a patient and tolerant voice; “She ain’t got no horse.”
This story came to mind as I was watching and listening to our august Senators debate the proposed Government run Health Care law now before the Senate. The politicians were actually debating the merits of an amendment that would allow for more health screening procedures for women. I’ll just pause here for a moment to let what I just said fully sink in. OK, now that you have had a little time to consider what was being debated, I’ll restate what I said the Senators were discussing in order to illuminate the glaring and apparently overlooked salient of the matter. Today pompous politicians were deciding how much health screening women would receive under the proposed Government Healthcare Program. That’s correct; politicians were deciding what level of healthcare women would receive, i.e., women will not be discussing with their primary healthcare provider what level of healthcare screening they personally needed, wanted or would pay for. Fellow “free” citizens, when you give the Government the responsibility for your personal healthcare you will no longer be riding the horse on your healthcare journey, you will be walking alongside the Government who will be riding the horse and will be dictating where you are going, healthcare wise, that is. The salient about this matter is; Government can only make political decisions. Governments can’t and won’t make personal decisions for you. If you allow the Government to take over your healthcare, your healthcare will be subjected to and rendered with all of the political considerations that the Government must make because Government is a political entity. Government cannot be a personal healthcare provider. So as time rolls by, Government Healthcare will be less and less about your personal healthcare and more and more about what is politically expedient and most politically advantageous to do. Don’t believe me? Look what has happened to the Social Security Program. What started out as a safety net for old age security has morphed into a political machine that promotes social causes, social engineering, and all for Government power and political advantage. Your social security taxes (taxes are power) go less and less for your old age safety net, and more and more for general social welfare.
In short Citizens, if you keep giving away your freedoms and power to the Government, “you ain’t got no horse.”
I heard a story about an old Indian traveling across the desert with all of his worldly possessions being dragged behind an old broken-down pony and his Squaw laboriously walking alongside. An old prospector happened upon the itinerant pair, and after they each had exchanged perfunctory salutations, the prospector, with a slightly bewildered smile, asked the dignified Indian seated upon his Pony why he was riding while his Squaw was walking. The old Indian slowly looked at the prospector and then responded with a patient and tolerant voice; “She ain’t got no horse.”
This story came to mind as I was watching and listening to our august Senators debate the proposed Government run Health Care law now before the Senate. The politicians were actually debating the merits of an amendment that would allow for more health screening procedures for women. I’ll just pause here for a moment to let what I just said fully sink in. OK, now that you have had a little time to consider what was being debated, I’ll restate what I said the Senators were discussing in order to illuminate the glaring and apparently overlooked salient of the matter. Today pompous politicians were deciding how much health screening women would receive under the proposed Government Healthcare Program. That’s correct; politicians were deciding what level of healthcare women would receive, i.e., women will not be discussing with their primary healthcare provider what level of healthcare screening they personally needed, wanted or would pay for. Fellow “free” citizens, when you give the Government the responsibility for your personal healthcare you will no longer be riding the horse on your healthcare journey, you will be walking alongside the Government who will be riding the horse and will be dictating where you are going, healthcare wise, that is. The salient about this matter is; Government can only make political decisions. Governments can’t and won’t make personal decisions for you. If you allow the Government to take over your healthcare, your healthcare will be subjected to and rendered with all of the political considerations that the Government must make because Government is a political entity. Government cannot be a personal healthcare provider. So as time rolls by, Government Healthcare will be less and less about your personal healthcare and more and more about what is politically expedient and most politically advantageous to do. Don’t believe me? Look what has happened to the Social Security Program. What started out as a safety net for old age security has morphed into a political machine that promotes social causes, social engineering, and all for Government power and political advantage. Your social security taxes (taxes are power) go less and less for your old age safety net, and more and more for general social welfare.
In short Citizens, if you keep giving away your freedoms and power to the Government, “you ain’t got no horse.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)