The Truth is There's Very Little of It

 

Politicians seem to have glommed onto the word "truth." We speak the "truth," and they don't! From a political perspective, this is brilliant. It inoculates their constituents against being swayed by their opponents' arguments because "they're lying."

Just as the word "literally" has come to mean "figuratively," which, ironically, is literally the opposite, "truth" has come to mean "in my opinion." 

I've been thinking a lot about "truth" lately. What constitutes "truth?" In an age in which audio and video can be flawlessly faked, and anyone can write anything, making it available to the masses, truth is hard to come by. That's not to say that everything you see and hear secondhand is false. It's to say that you don't really know.

There are some truths in mathematics. For example, we know 2+2=4. This is truth. But even in scientific fields like physics, we mostly just have theories. Any study of the evolution of human understanding of physics will demonstrate that what was once believed to be hard scientific proof turned out to be completely wrong later.

So what is truth, then? You can usually trust what you see. I have a beautiful large maple tree in my front yard. That is as true as anything gets for me. Sadly, for you, dear reader, that is just a belief. Unless you've seen my tree with your own eyes, you don't know if I'm making it up or not.

Ultimately, most of what we know comes down to belief. We choose who to believe, and then we trust that they are telling us the truth. When the people we believe say things that conflict with their opposition's "truth," THEY are lying...or are they?

Figuring out who is telling the truth and who is lying when two sides of a debate disagree can be a lot of work. If the issue concerns past events, substantiating the truth may be impossible.

We prefer the truth to the ambiguities of belief. We like to pretend that our beliefs are the truth. It's much more reassuring to know that our beliefs are built upon "the truth." Unfortunately, our beliefs are mostly built upon more beliefs. We have no choice but to trust our beliefs. When they are challenged, it's much easier to say the others are lying than to do the potentially futile research to determine whether there's any definitive evidence to substantiate one position.

What can we do about it? If there was an easy answer, we'd all be doing it. There isn't one. If we want to approximate "the truth," we must work for it. Put in the time and effort to seek trustworthy evidence. The only alternative is to pick trustworthy sources and hope they are rigorous in seeking substantiating evidence for their claims.

Unfortunately, sources that we once trusted now have agendas. News outlets have largely become mouthpieces for some guiding belief system. When I was younger (many years ago), we could trust the major news outlets to report "the truth." What we didn't know was that there was a lot of important information that simply wasn't reported because the people who controlled the news outlets kept it secret. It's harder to do that now, so mis/dysinformation is used to obscure inconvenient facts.

What does this mean? For me, it means that every idea, no matter how counter to my beliefs, is worthy of consideration. I may ultimately dismiss it based on my analysis of the situation, but I will consider it. I leave you with one example.

Some believe that the lunar landing was faked. I agree that this is possible. We know thousands of people worked for years to build the equipment and infrastructure for the lunar landing. We know astronauts boarded a craft and went into space, heading toward the moon. We know this because many people saw these events with their own eyes. So many people that coordinating a cover-up would be virtually impossible.

We know that the three astronauts who flew the mission returned to Earth. Again, many people saw them with their own eyes. The only part of the mission that many people didn't see was the actual landing. Let's say, hypothetically, that something went wrong during this portion of the mission, and the secret "powers that be" decided to fake the landing. They would need to involve many people in creating a realistic set, along with the film crew and post-production teams. All of these people would need to remain silent. It's a big ask.

The other issue with this theory is which types of things could have gone wrong with the mission that would have left the expected equipment and people intact for the return. Undoubtedly, there are scenarios in which this would be the case, but there are many more in which they would have suffered losses that couldn't be covered up. Since the preparations for the faking would have needed to take place before the mission was launched, one might question the value given only some scenarios would even create the opportunity to utilize it.

Conspiracy theorists may find some evidence to suggest the lunar landing was faked, but they can't explain away the preponderance of solid evidence to the contrary. Did the lunar landing happen? I don't know, but I choose to believe that it did.

You Don't Have to Hate People of Color to Be a Racist

Why are some people worried about non-white immigrants infiltrating our country? It has long been known that education and economic prosperity reduce family size. We are even starting to see this in countries like India and China, which previously were devoid of a middle class. It should come as no surprise, then, that European white people are declining in numbers faster than their counterparts in economically depressed, mostly non-white countries.

Working alongside this statistical population fact, we have a situation in which many families require two incomes to maintain the family prosperity that we’ve come to expect. Some might couch this as the result of feminism. I would argue that feminism may have made it so that women can have more opportunities for a professional career, but it did nothing to influence the fact that many women now need to work. Generally, working women don't raise large families.

While these two conditions don’t specifically target white people, it so happens that the historical privilege that white people have enjoyed globally works against them when it comes to population size. Some estimates put the global white population at approximately 16%. In an increasingly mobile world, we can expect some dispersion of the other 84% of the population. 

It’s no wonder some people have adopted The Great Replacement Theory to explain what’s happening. They think there is some cabal of neo-liberals plotting and scheming to take away the historical power that white people have enjoyed. Even if such a cabal existed, they ought to be out playing golf or something because their services are not needed for dispersion to continue.

The United States is still the greatest country on Earth. There are three main pillars of power: economic, military, and infrastructure. Arguably, our infrastructure is aging and no longer the best in the world, but two out of three is still enough to keep us in the lead.

Some argue that America is no longer great, so we need to make it great again. The facts don’t support this. These same people want to cut off the flow of immigrants. Who knows better than those attempting to emigrate here that America is still the land of opportunity? Folks, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say we’re not great while millions fight to get here every year. 

Part of our greatness has always been the advantage of having hardworking immigrants who come here to build the life they see others here enjoying. Their creativity and willingness to take risks have brought us many, if not most, of our greatest achievements as a nation. 

Bigotry has only slowed this effect. Some white people argue that the slide from a majority will make this country worse. But if we suppress the greatness of non-white people in this country, how does that help us? It's not about the color of our skin, but the content of our character and the ideas we bring. How many ideas that make us stronger in different ways will never see the light of day because someone wasn’t given a fair chance to see their ideas blossom? We need to ensure everyone has a fair chance to contribute to our collective greatness.

Our focus on immigration should be on managing the flow of people to support our economic needs. This is not about exclusion, but about ensuring that we can provide opportunities for those who want to contribute to our society. There are many low-wage jobs in the agriculture and service industries that we simply don’t have enough people here to fill. On the other end of the economic spectrum, we have extraordinary, intelligent people worldwide who want to come here and bring their skills and expertise. Whatever color their skin, they make our country stronger for their presence. We should welcome them and make them feel like this is their home, too.

If that makes you uncomfortable, stop off at the next mirror. You are a racist!

I Think I Finally Get MAGA

 I was born in the late 1950s. The funny thing about decades is that culturally, they don't begin and end on the oughts. The sixties we think about didn't start until the middle of the decade and didn't end until the middle of the 70s.

This meant that for the first few years of my life, I lived in the 50s. I was a kid, but I still remember the vibe. We were all taught to respect our elders, be polite in public, and stay in our lane. Lanes were important back then. If you were a woman, you had a different role in society, and while you were treated with a certain amount of respect in public, you were "just a woman."

White men ruled, and there were a lot of them. I don't think I saw a Hispanic person in Michigan until much later. Black people were poor and lived in the city. We had a semi-live-in maid whose parents were sharecroppers down South. She and her husband came North to find work in factories. Well, he did. She would not have been allowed to work in a factory then.

These rigid rules of society brought a veneer of order to public life. You knew what to expect. Even in the late 60s and early 70s, when the hippie movement took place, hippies knew they were going to be looked down upon by "the man."

As the hippies got older, they remembered that treatment and decided (some of them anyway) that it wasn't right to treat one group of people differently than others. They set about redesigning the culture so that everyone was "equal" and respect was earned, not given.

On the surface, this sounds like a move in the right direction. However, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If respect is no longer given but earned, many people won't respect others by default. Civil society, as it was called, breaks down. Instead of social rules, we have the good graces of the individual to rely on for how we're treated in public. 

To say the results of that experiment are inconsistent would be an understatement. I meet lovely, kind people when I'm out (a lot of them), and I meet people who would mow you down to get to their next destination. I try to be kind to them, too. When you're nasty in public, people will treat you equally badly, and you will form a view of the world that people are nasty. It's a vicious spiral that far too many people are caught in.

The MAGA movement (Make America Great Again, in case you didn't know) wants to roll back the clock. The goal is laudable. Bring back civil society. The approach will never work. The tensions that lay below the surface back then, when people were repressed in the name of social norms, will never be acceptable again.

MAGA as a goal is worthy, but how we get there needs to be reconsidered by those who want to put the genie back in the bottle. We have to move forward from where we are, and people are not going to go back to being unequal, repressed, or dismissed as a fringe of society.

Tactics like taking away abortion rights, removing immigrants, and eliminating programs designed to right the wrongs of our repressive past (like affirmative action) are designed to put the genie back in the bottle. 

It's time to bring back civil society without repression. I think it can be done, but we need a new approach. Maybe the MAGA folks will figure that out eventually. I live in hope.

The Civil Cold War Isn't Over

On April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House in Virginia. This is generally considered the end of the Civil War. As we know from history, the practices that divided us went on long after that date.

The animosity between those who advocated for the practices of the South has never fully dissipated into the sands of time. Robert E. Lee, along with other Southern leaders, were heroes to their people. While their contemporaries are long dead, their descendants carry forward their beliefs.

You might say, "They lost, we won! Get over it." Some have. Others haven't. Those who haven't still adhere to the slogan, "The South shall rise again!" Apparently, now seems as good a time as any.

It's ironic, then, that the Shenandoah County School Board in Virginia wants to restore the name of Robert E. Lee to a local school. Don't they know they are part of the North? I guess not. 

The Civil War was horrible. Any civil war pits family, friends, and neighbors against each other. There are no winners. We assume that without the Civil War, slavery would not have been abolished, but we don't know that.

Maybe the time for slavery to end was upon us in the late 1800s. Maybe had the anti-slavery movement gathered strength in another way, the outcome would have saved more lives, been more unifying, and resulted in the same eventual end to slavery.

We'll never know. In the meantime, the animosity continues to build, and nobody is doing much about assuaging it. The cold war may not stay cold forever.

We're All Going Mad!

Is it just me or are we all going crazy?

The news industry has been obliterated by social media. Now, we have no trusted sources, but those we randomly select. Pick your news and stay with it! They could be blowing smoke up your a$$, but at least it will be YOUR smoke.

A case in point is the current anti-Israel fervor on campuses across the U.S. Where are these kids getting their news? What information has made them so angry with Israel? Oh, wait! It’s simple, right?

People are dying in Gaza. The IDF is killing them. Therefore, Israel should stop. <- note the period there

If the world were only that simple. Wouldn’t it be nice if every issue just had one or two important factors? Sadly, we have so many issues facing us and every damn one of them is complex.

Once upon a time, there were people labeled Renaissance Men (they were all males -- sorry ladies and thems). The word may still be in use, but the definition has changed. These people used to know everything there was to know about human knowledge. 

Millions of people are inventing new things and ideas every day now. Nobody can be expected to keep up. We are inadequate to the task. With no universally trusted sources and growing complexity, there’s no answer in sight.

Back to our anti-Israel example. This current episode is part of a series. The kids who are protesting only watched the latest one. Their perspective is limited and narrowly focused. They need a “bad guy” to pin this human tragedy on, so they picked one -- historical perspective be damned!

Historical perspective could save us, but it’s too much work. Who wants to study the background of every issue facing us, when we can just pick a side and go with it? 

In the 1930s, the German economy was bad. People needed a fix. Along came Adolf Hitler, who blamed the whole thing on the Jews. Just get rid of them and we can go back to…oh, let’s just call it MGGA! We’ll use fear and intimidation to get everyone in line. Sound familiar? Hamas does it. Trump likes this strategy, too. 

If you’re a fan of Mazlow, you might know his hierarchy of needs: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization (in order from base needs to the more esoteric). Note that if you threaten someone with fear and intimidation, you are messing with hard-wired reactions. It’s powerful…and effective. Despotic leaders everywhere know this.

The profile of the despotic leader throughout history is well understood. Yet, our lack of historical perspective leads us back to these people again and again. They offer us simple solutions to complex problems. Those other guys were making our heads hurt with all of their nuance. Why can’t the world go back to being simple? Maybe the slogan should be MASA (make America simple again).

Unfortunately, nobody can do that. Our puny brains can’t keep up, so we make stupid choices in the name of simplicity. 

One more case in point before I leave you, dear reader. DEI, which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion, sounds like something everyone can get behind. Why is the social justice movement corrupt? The answer is complex, but Liberals would have you think it’s simple.

We have a history of racial discrimination in this country. Few would deny that. Those who do probably long for the “good old days” when being white meant you were special. The reality is that the vast majority of people don’t feel that way anymore. They accept that we’re all just people trying to live together.

DEI comes along and it casts our problems in racial terms. There’s a fundamental flaw with that thinking. Since the 1980s, rural America has been under attack. Agribusiness, bankers, lawyers, and insurance companies have decimated once-thriving economies. The mechanization of many jobs held by people across this country has destroyed the economies of small industrial towns.

While there are a lot of non-whites who suffer economic hardship due to the historical facts of their lineage, there are a lot of white people in the same boat for different reasons. When DEI initiatives exclude them from the party because of the color of their skin…let’s just say that it’s no surprise they want to burn the whole thing down.

Once you do the work to understand the whole picture, people’s crazy behavior starts to make sense. But that’s just too much work for most people. We just don’t have the time to keep up. So, we pick a side and hate the other one. Our technology is destroying us, and we’re helpless to stop it. Happy fucking Friday!

I Thought I was Safe -- I'm Not!

 I have led a very privileged life. My awareness of this is made real by my parallel awareness of the living conditions of most of the people on planet Earth. Resource distribution is uneven, and I won the resource lottery.

Growing up, I was not a practicing Jew. Nonetheless, unlike other religions, Jews are Jews whether they choose to be or not. For the most part, I didn't experience much antisemitism growing up. I received a few derogatory comments from other kids but not much more. I was aware that wasn't the case for everyone.

As I got older, I saw more evidence of antisemitism in society, but I was removed from it. I heard a Midwestern farmer complaining about the "Jew bankers" on TV and other minor evidence. Since the start of the war in Gaza, I've become very uncomfortable. Antisemitism has become mainstream.

The notion that Israel is committing genocide is the scariest of all. The IDF has the capabilities to flatten Gaza from the air leaving no civilians behind without putting a single Israeli soldier in harm's way. That would be genocide. In fact, that's what genocide looks like.

What is actually happening is that the IDF is sending many soldiers into harm's way and using air power in as limited a fashion as possible to conduct the war and minimize civilian casualties under horrific conditions. You see, Hamas has strategically positioned themselves to maximize civilian casualties. They have diverted massive funds that could have gone to help their citizen to build extensive military infrastructure under and around the civilian population.

Twenty thousand civilian casualties is a tragedy, to be certain, but given that this number represents less than 1% of the civilian population, under the circumstances, it shows tremendous restraint. Certainly, if the Israeli military wanted to commit genocide, they could do much better than this.

I would expect Hamas operatives to paint the IDF as barbarians intent on destroying the Palestinians, but now it seems that the world is piling onto this messaging with no actual facts in tow. Maybe I shouldn't whine about it. People all over the world are subjected to terrible injustices every day due to their difference from those chosen to be the "right" people.

We've come to expect the mainstream media to stick up for what is right, but "what is right" seems to have become increasingly ambiguous. Fox News' definition will be very different from MSNBC's. Nonetheless, we should be able to count on facts being allowed to speak for themselves.

The fact is that Israel is a Jewish homeland. It is the only place where a Jew can live and feel safe from antisemitism. Or so they thought. Many people call them colonialists. Yet, they don't call white Europeans living in the United States colonialists. They don't call people of Spanish descent living in Mexico colonialists. They call them Americans and Mexicans. Wars are fought, deals are made, and we accept the consequences.

For some reason, Israel is a special exception to this. Why? The answer seems plain and simple -- antisemitism. Nowhere is antisemitism stronger than in the Middle East. In a vast sea of Muslims lives a small country full of Jews, and millions hate that fact every day. The Jews have as much historical right to be in that land as anyone else, but nobody offered up another place, so they took what they were given.

I like to say that we're one alien invasion away from putting away our differences. Unfortunately, contrary to the plots of such movies, a species capable of interstellar travel would have no trouble dispatching our entire species. So, I continue to wonder if there's a way to end our tribal roots and live together as one species -- humans. 

Until then, hate me for being a Jew if you have to, but please don't hurt me. Can't we evolve at least that far?

It's Time to Stop Global Corporations

 

We are the proverbial frog -- being boiled slowly enough that we don't jump. I was on Chewy.com's website this morning, adding an item to my next auto-ship. It was so easy that I found myself scratching my head. How could Chewy get this so right, and Amazon get it so wrong?

If you've ever tried to change an Auto-ship order on Amazon, you know what I'm talking about. It's impossible to do most things (like changing the delivery address because you won't be at home), and difficult to do the few things you can do (like changing the delivery date). I know Amazon is capable of doing much better. They choose not to. These deficiencies are barriers to making their operations more complex at your expense.

This is a theme that most global corporations have figured out. They can squeeze consumers from every angle, and their sheer size and reach will cause people to just suck it up. While I'm piling on Amazon, this year, they raised their Prime cost...AGAIN! That might be reasonable, but then only a few months later, they decide to make Prime members, who expect Prime Video as one of the components of membership, pay an extra $35.88 per year to avoid ads. So, now they have added a new revenue source, AND they are making you pay extra. Sweet deal for them.

I have similar stories for every major corporation I deal with. It's the new normal. Arguably, we shouldn't blame them. It's capitalism. This is how it works. When companies go public, their very existence depends on finding new ways to increase profits. Naturally, the customer is the loser when creativity stalls.

How can we stop the bleeding? Short of ending capitalism, there's one simple change that would have a major impact -- 100% publicly funded elections. I know what you're thinking, what politician would vote for that? Answer: until we citizens demand it, none. Every politician takes money from rich people who are rich because they run corporations. It won't be easy.

Here's the thing: if elections were publicly funded, politicians would be beholden only to voters. They wouldn't be able to get rich from corporate bribes (at least legally), and they wouldn't need to spend any time listening to what corporate leaders want. This would incentivize true leaders who actually want to make positive change for the people of this country and disincentivize those who seek power and wealth.

It would essentially eliminate corporate lobby groups because their money couldn't go anywhere. Special interest lobbies would continue to exist, but politicians would be more interested in what's popular with the people than what will get them enough money to win their next election or secure a cushy life after politics.

Imagine if politicians couldn't run ads. No highly polished psyops hit pieces designed to trigger deep-seated emotions. Everything you know about them would come from position pieces, speeches, and what others say. Furthermore, nobody would ever again win an election because they outspent their opponent during the campaign.

In a democracy, the majority rules. It doesn't always work out the way people in minority positions want, but one hopes that the greater good is served. A large majority of Americans want control over assault weapons. They also overwhelmingly want the right for women to have legal abortions. Many other issues are left either unaddressed or pushed in the wrong direction by minority interests because of politicians who are working the current system. They don't need to care about the majority, so they don't.

Running publicly funded elections would be easy. Anyone filing for office would get a relatively small amount of money prior to gaining the necessary signatures to be on the ballot. If the election has a primary, candidates get a traunch of money when they get on the ballot, and another if they win the primary. 

Public funds can only be used to promote actual videos or written content by the candidate (or at least for them). Because the funding will be considerably less than what they'd receive from big donors, the Madison Avenue folks will lose interest in developing polished ads anyway. Even if they wanted to give away their services, they couldn't because that would be an illegal campaign donation.

It might take some time, but eventually, a new kind of politician would emerge. This new breed will prove very different and highly successful against the old guard who haven't embraced the new reality. The new breed will target popular issues and deliver tangible results. They will look more like "heroes of the people" and less like "backroom dealers." Greedy corporations would quickly lose favor in Washington, D.C. There's only so much time before corporate interests boil us to death. Oh, the issues we'd solve!