Tom Brady's favorite opera? Deflator Mouse.
His favorite movie? Lords of Flatbush.
His wife's favorite shoes? Flats.
Where does he live? In a flat.
His favorite kind of weather? Low pressure.
What does he do after a game? Depressurizes.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Wealth: The False Premises
Complaints about "wealth inequality" are common and even popular, but are they based on facts? I think there are some false premises in current public discussion of wealth.
First false premise: The very wealthy take wealth away from others. This assumption goes uncontested in all the news outlets I've seen, yet it's completely false except in cases of theft or despotism. Take any very wealthy person (who is not one of the exceptions) and examine how they accumulated their wealth, and you'll see that they earned it, were very lucky, inherited a portion of it, or some combination of these. Wealth is not a finite quantity. If Bill Gates did not exist, for example, the wealth he created would simply not exist. He didn't take it away from anyone.
Second false premise: The wealth "gap." Wealth is a spectrum, with people at every income level from the lowest to the highest. There is no gap in the spectrum. Comparing two extreme or random points of any data spectrum is a relatively meaningless exercise. For example, the highest recorded temperature on earth is about 70 degrees F higher than the annual average temperature in Duluth, Iowa. So what? What matters is the spectrum and its shape.
Third false premise: Use of the phrase "wealth inequality." Attempts at wealth "equality" have always been associated with despotism and oppression. There has never been any such thing as "wealth equality," nor is it achievable where anything that can be called "wealth" exists because individuals' capabilities, opportunities, and desires are unequal. The phrase is, in the real world, meaningless.
First false premise: The very wealthy take wealth away from others. This assumption goes uncontested in all the news outlets I've seen, yet it's completely false except in cases of theft or despotism. Take any very wealthy person (who is not one of the exceptions) and examine how they accumulated their wealth, and you'll see that they earned it, were very lucky, inherited a portion of it, or some combination of these. Wealth is not a finite quantity. If Bill Gates did not exist, for example, the wealth he created would simply not exist. He didn't take it away from anyone.
Second false premise: The wealth "gap." Wealth is a spectrum, with people at every income level from the lowest to the highest. There is no gap in the spectrum. Comparing two extreme or random points of any data spectrum is a relatively meaningless exercise. For example, the highest recorded temperature on earth is about 70 degrees F higher than the annual average temperature in Duluth, Iowa. So what? What matters is the spectrum and its shape.
Third false premise: Use of the phrase "wealth inequality." Attempts at wealth "equality" have always been associated with despotism and oppression. There has never been any such thing as "wealth equality," nor is it achievable where anything that can be called "wealth" exists because individuals' capabilities, opportunities, and desires are unequal. The phrase is, in the real world, meaningless.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Ignorance and Experience
There are fundamental problems regarding important discussions about climate, energy, federal fiscal policy, foreign policy, terrorism, and many other subjects, that I think few recognize but we all need to understand to be more effective and responsible participants in the discussions. I'll try to explain my take on them.
The first is, "the ignorant cannot know what they do not know." A correlary might be, "knowledge reveals boundaries," or "only those who have studied a topic extensively know how much they don't know." This is a problem because the ignorant talk and think and form opinions without realizing how wrong they might be. We see this every day in public discourse from Facebook posts to blogs to opinion pieces to talk radio shows to politicians' speeches.
The second is that our personal experiences often override other facts in our minds. There are many examples including politics, economics, and social issues, but good ones to quantify are natural Earth systems (climate, river floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions). One human lifetime is too short relative to natural cycles to give a meaningful sampling. If we have a hot or wet or cold or dry decade, many conclude that the climate is changing. If several big earthquakes occur close together, many conclude that we're having more earthquakes. If big floods occur in a short period of time, many conclude that floods are increasing. The fact is that all of these things happen in much more complex cycles and patterns (often random) than any of us will experience in our lifetimes. None of us has lived in an ice age, for example, and yet our ancestors did. Our perceptions, then, are only of a small part of the whole story, like the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
How can we personally deal with these issues? First, to carefully evaluate how much you really know about a subject before forming a solid opinion, ask useful questions like these: How many hours have you spent studying it? (It takes thousands of hours to become an expert). What were your sources of information, experts or opinion-makers? (Stick with experts). Can I put this information into the bigger context of the total possibilities? (If not, you probably don't understand it well).
This is not to say that we cannot form valid opinions without becoming experts. We can, but it is vital to recognize the limits of our understanding and the bias that our personal experience puts into our minds. That just may change our conclusions.
Summary 1) Recognize the limits of your knowledge. 2) Study. 3) Get information from subject-matter experts only. 4) Recognize the bias of personal experience.
The first is, "the ignorant cannot know what they do not know." A correlary might be, "knowledge reveals boundaries," or "only those who have studied a topic extensively know how much they don't know." This is a problem because the ignorant talk and think and form opinions without realizing how wrong they might be. We see this every day in public discourse from Facebook posts to blogs to opinion pieces to talk radio shows to politicians' speeches.
The second is that our personal experiences often override other facts in our minds. There are many examples including politics, economics, and social issues, but good ones to quantify are natural Earth systems (climate, river floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions). One human lifetime is too short relative to natural cycles to give a meaningful sampling. If we have a hot or wet or cold or dry decade, many conclude that the climate is changing. If several big earthquakes occur close together, many conclude that we're having more earthquakes. If big floods occur in a short period of time, many conclude that floods are increasing. The fact is that all of these things happen in much more complex cycles and patterns (often random) than any of us will experience in our lifetimes. None of us has lived in an ice age, for example, and yet our ancestors did. Our perceptions, then, are only of a small part of the whole story, like the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
How can we personally deal with these issues? First, to carefully evaluate how much you really know about a subject before forming a solid opinion, ask useful questions like these: How many hours have you spent studying it? (It takes thousands of hours to become an expert). What were your sources of information, experts or opinion-makers? (Stick with experts). Can I put this information into the bigger context of the total possibilities? (If not, you probably don't understand it well).
This is not to say that we cannot form valid opinions without becoming experts. We can, but it is vital to recognize the limits of our understanding and the bias that our personal experience puts into our minds. That just may change our conclusions.
Summary 1) Recognize the limits of your knowledge. 2) Study. 3) Get information from subject-matter experts only. 4) Recognize the bias of personal experience.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
A Missed Historic Opportunity
President Obama, as the first non-White president, missed a truly monumental opportunity to take his place in History. When protests broke out around the country about two Black men being killed by police, the President could have stepped in as an authority figure to settle down the inflamed emotions. He could have issued words of wisdom to mend the divide and heal the wounds, to address the deep distrust some have about police and the legal system. He was in the historically unique position to say, "My people!" and begin to heal generations of problems.
Instead, the President took the outrageous and illogical position of blaming the police. In neither case was race a factor, and yet the President took the side of the protesters and fanned the flames.
Not once did he point out that the man in Ferguson died because he refused to cooperate with the police. Not once did he point out that the man in New York was resisting arrest, doing something illegal, and died because of pre-existing serious health problems. Not once did he call for all citizens to respect and cooperate with the police, and to respect and honor the evidence judged by the grand juries. And not once did he call on the protesters to do their part to heal the wounds.
Without the protesters admitting the facts of the cases, without them seeing that there was no racial component to either case, and without them living in the world of truth and facts, they will continue to live in a land of illusion where emotions rule and there can be no healing.
The President only blamed the police.
And for that, he will go down in history as a footnote instead of as a great leader.
Instead, the President took the outrageous and illogical position of blaming the police. In neither case was race a factor, and yet the President took the side of the protesters and fanned the flames.
Not once did he point out that the man in Ferguson died because he refused to cooperate with the police. Not once did he point out that the man in New York was resisting arrest, doing something illegal, and died because of pre-existing serious health problems. Not once did he call for all citizens to respect and cooperate with the police, and to respect and honor the evidence judged by the grand juries. And not once did he call on the protesters to do their part to heal the wounds.
Without the protesters admitting the facts of the cases, without them seeing that there was no racial component to either case, and without them living in the world of truth and facts, they will continue to live in a land of illusion where emotions rule and there can be no healing.
The President only blamed the police.
And for that, he will go down in history as a footnote instead of as a great leader.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Protest Accurately
If you're going to protest, at least know the facts. Protesting something that didn't happen makes you look, well, foolish.
Protesters around the country in December 2014 are getting some things wrong. First of all, there was no racial component to either of the deaths they decry. None. Second, the man shot by an officer in Ferguson, Missouri had just robbed a store, tried to take the officer's gun, and was charging the officer when he was shot. The facts bear this out. Oh, and he was six foot five and 290 pounds. His actions led to his getting shot.
The choke-hold on an obese man selling illegal cigarettes in New York was tragic and should never have happened. But get the facts straight. In a true choke-hold, the man would not have been able to speak because his larynx would have been crushed. The man had heart disease and asthma, and died of a heart attack, not from a choke-hold. Yes, the police over-reacted and used excessive force, but their actions were not racially motivated nor done out of malice. It was a tragic, and avoidable, accident.
Protesters around the country in December 2014 are getting some things wrong. First of all, there was no racial component to either of the deaths they decry. None. Second, the man shot by an officer in Ferguson, Missouri had just robbed a store, tried to take the officer's gun, and was charging the officer when he was shot. The facts bear this out. Oh, and he was six foot five and 290 pounds. His actions led to his getting shot.
The choke-hold on an obese man selling illegal cigarettes in New York was tragic and should never have happened. But get the facts straight. In a true choke-hold, the man would not have been able to speak because his larynx would have been crushed. The man had heart disease and asthma, and died of a heart attack, not from a choke-hold. Yes, the police over-reacted and used excessive force, but their actions were not racially motivated nor done out of malice. It was a tragic, and avoidable, accident.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Believe and Let Believe
Something circulating on social media got me thinking. It goes something like this:
If you're Jewish, please wish me "Happy Hanukkah."
If you're Christian, please wish me "Merry Christmas."
If you want to wish me "Joyous Kwanzaa," please do so.
If you wish me "Happy Holidays," I'll happily return the greeting.
If you want to wish me "Happy Winter Solstice," I will share your joy.
Whatever your seasonal greeting, I will be happy to share it with you!
For atheists to take government entities, companies, schools, and individuals to court over holiday displays or greetings is simply mean-spirited. There is no inherent offense in these things. They don't exclude or marginalize anyone. They are done in a friendly community spirit of rejoicing and sharing, with complete absence of malice.
Judges should start dismissing these frivolous, mean-spirited suits the minute they are brought.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Relative Moralism's Problems
Relative moralism is the idea that morals are situational and personal. It is becoming more prevalent every year. Years ago it took over Europe, and just recently it has become dominant in the U.S. I have a couple of fundamental problems with relative moralism, and I'll tell you why.
One is that it presumes there is no God. God is a problem for relative moralists, because God -- any God -- would give absolute morals. God sets limits and boundaries. God gives commandments. Anyone who claims to believe in both God and relative moralism is a fool -- they are completely incompatible.
Another problem I have is that relative moralism fails to form any basis for laws about moral topics. That's why so many judges today are having trouble with laws prohibiting same-sex marriage -- they presume relative moralism. And that's a problem, because relative moralism leads inevitably to "anything goes," with only vague limits, usually when actions infringe on others' rights (as long as those rights make sense in relative moralism. They won't defend the rights of the religious). Relative moralism leads inevitably to moral anarchy.
Relative moralism is the basis for the deep divide between religious Americans and others today, particularly the gay community. With belief in God and scripture, same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage are plainly, obviously wrong. (Arguments to the contrary using the Bible are nothing but phony rationalization). So are adultery, fornication, drunkenness, lying, cheating, stealing, materialism, selfishness, anger, swearing, and so forth. With relative moralism, very few behaviors are wrong, and who are you to tell me what's right or wrong, anyway? How can relative moralists say polygamy is wrong any more, for example? Who knows how low the bar will go in the future -- relative moralism has no bottom.
But with belief in God and scripture, moral boundaries are relatively plain. That makes it the clearly superior philosophy on which to base a civilization, and the proof is in American history. The proof of relative moralism's corrosiveness to civilization is what has happened in many countries and is starting in America -- we're falling, folks.
It would be unfair at this point to compare religious-based morals with communism, Nazism, Jihadism, or other extremes. Come on, you know that's not even close to a valid comparison. Extremists are their own world.
One is that it presumes there is no God. God is a problem for relative moralists, because God -- any God -- would give absolute morals. God sets limits and boundaries. God gives commandments. Anyone who claims to believe in both God and relative moralism is a fool -- they are completely incompatible.
Another problem I have is that relative moralism fails to form any basis for laws about moral topics. That's why so many judges today are having trouble with laws prohibiting same-sex marriage -- they presume relative moralism. And that's a problem, because relative moralism leads inevitably to "anything goes," with only vague limits, usually when actions infringe on others' rights (as long as those rights make sense in relative moralism. They won't defend the rights of the religious). Relative moralism leads inevitably to moral anarchy.
Relative moralism is the basis for the deep divide between religious Americans and others today, particularly the gay community. With belief in God and scripture, same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage are plainly, obviously wrong. (Arguments to the contrary using the Bible are nothing but phony rationalization). So are adultery, fornication, drunkenness, lying, cheating, stealing, materialism, selfishness, anger, swearing, and so forth. With relative moralism, very few behaviors are wrong, and who are you to tell me what's right or wrong, anyway? How can relative moralists say polygamy is wrong any more, for example? Who knows how low the bar will go in the future -- relative moralism has no bottom.
But with belief in God and scripture, moral boundaries are relatively plain. That makes it the clearly superior philosophy on which to base a civilization, and the proof is in American history. The proof of relative moralism's corrosiveness to civilization is what has happened in many countries and is starting in America -- we're falling, folks.
It would be unfair at this point to compare religious-based morals with communism, Nazism, Jihadism, or other extremes. Come on, you know that's not even close to a valid comparison. Extremists are their own world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)