All the Lies

American thinking is being dulled by the flood of false statements from the media, politicians, and disappointingly, even by the oval office.  Not every president has been honest and open with the citizens.  Some have made inaccurate statements along the way and some have lied to us, but today is perhaps different.

False facts abound. Insulting responses to critics are reminiscent of sibling insults when mom and dad weren't around. 

Most of us are at a loss to know how we should react to such behavior.  If it were in our family, our options would range from serious to severe.  Chronic untruth would not be left unaddressed in our children or tolerated in our primary relationships.  What are our options in the public arena?

There's a problem with false statements being left unchallenged, of course.  

When we are overwhelmed with false, or potentially false, statements, our brains pretty quickly become so overworked that we stop trying to sift through everything.

Our brain responds to lies in two steps.

     We (1) accept and visualize the content as valid before (2) reviewing the facts and considering whether we should unaccept it or not.  The first step is automatic and effortless while the second requires conscious thought and a detailed relabeling of the lie's content in our mental file system.  A flood of lies and misrepresentations can overburden our already demanding mental tasking, and it can distort our understanding, our view of things.  Unless we're exceptionally careful, the flood can change our worldview based on falsehood.

Manufactured misinformation is not a new problem.  Over the years ...
Referring to Jews or non-whites as an 'inferior race' is one example.
Insisting nicotine is not addictive and smoking is not a health problem is another.

Referring to abortion as 'reproductive health care' and an unborn child as a 'fetus' is another.
Referring to climate science as a 'liberal hoax' is another.
Suggesting Mexico sends us their 'rapists and criminals', etc., is another.
Categorizing Muslims in general as 'terrorists' is another.
Describing folks receiving assistance as 'leeches' is another.

Whether it is from an office holder, the news media, or some extremist, we face a deluge of conflicting information, much of which is demonstrably false.  These are indeed interesting times, especially for those concerned with traditional values and national integrity.

Everything Changes; wonder what's next?

The end of the automobile industry and the global oil industry are both predicted by economic and industry modeling.  Perhaps.  Maybe.  This fellow (Tony Seba) describes the progression of technology, industry, and consumption according to what we've seen so far, and he's perhaps right about what's ahead.  We've been surprised before, of course; for example:

• “I do not believe the introduction of motor-cars will ever affect the riding of horses.” Scott-Montague, 1903.  😃  In 1900 NYC was filled with horses and buggies, they were essential.  It took about a decade and a half to replace 95% of them with automobiles.
• “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Ken Olson, genius engineer, 1977   😀 We know how that turned out.
• Landline telephones were in every home when the first clunky mobile phone was marketed in the 80's.  AT&T's 15-year prediction said there would be perhaps 900,000 customers for mobile phones.  There were 109 million.  They missed the actual number by 120x.  In 2014, the number of mobile devices exceeded world population, 7+ billion.
• Mixing computer things with telephone things would never be popular according to most industry participants.  Then came smartphones ...
• And ... Apple's $600 smart phone would never be popular according to business analysts.
• Electric vehicles are 5x-10x more energy efficient than their fossil fuel competitors, they have fewer moving parts and are more reliable, maintainable, and cost effective.  What happens when Uber moves to autonomous (self-driving) electric vehicles?  What happens when an integrated EV can power your home for a day or two?

Such changes in the consumer culture are not trends, they're disruptions.  Changes over time are often portrayed as linear, straight-line changes that advance predictably, a little each year.  Reality is otherwise, and there's a driving factor -- population.

Population growth continues as does urbanization. Consider the changes that might trigger in the marketplace.

Our centralized power grid is costly and inefficient.  I wonder what will change.
Our healthcare industry is clumsy and expensive.  Our transportation industry is inordinately complex and costly.  Our mega-super-store model is inefficient, and so are our shopping malls.  Our banking industry is crooked as a dog's hind leg.  Our international trade mechanisms are proven to be deadly.  I wonder what will change.

It's worth noting that everything changes, often rapidly.  Except truth; that doesn't change.  What's right and fair doesn't change, but literally everything else does.

Had a recent Skype call with a young African friend.  When we first met just a few years ago, he and his family were unreachable without mail or phone service.  Now he and many of the rest are on Facebook.  😎  What do these changes mean to our rapidly evolving cultures?

If politicians are smart, they'll perhaps get out of the way and take credit for the improvements.  🤣

What's hard about life?

This young fellow came to the teacher and asked what he needed to do to finish well.  He was told to love God and obey the rules.  The guy said he'd done all of that, and the teacher told him to prove it, but he couldn't or perhaps wouldn't.  His wealth and position, it seems, had tainted his thinking, his view of himself, his comfort and luxury and future. He couldn't imagine changing course to a better purpose.

It's hard, the teacher said, for a rich person to finish well. Really hard. Later, the teacher's friends were struggling to understand.  "If that rich fellow can't do it, how can we or anyone?"   There is a way, but it's perhaps not obvious once wealth and class obscure things.

________________________________________

Just to put things in context, that rich young upper class fellow was at the top of the food chain.  He had position and influence, income and a retirement plan, pretty much everything he would need for a good long life.  Only a few folks were well off like him and his family.  Apparently, that can be an impediment.

Back then, regular folks had no wealth.  None.  They depended on a little business, a successful crop, a healthy herd for getting by day to day.  They're like subsistence farmers, perhaps, or the village fisherman of developing countries, or like most of the world today, folks who live on less than $5 per day.  When they pray, "give us this day, bread ...," it's probably for real.

Fitting such truth onto the framework of today's world suggests western culture will face the greatest obstacles to doing anything well; anything at all.

Okay, so we're warned that wealth can become too important in our lives, and we're encouraged to help others, to go all in and really make a difference, ...  and then there's that larger part, the better purpose; we're supposed to follow the teacher.

_____________________________________________________

"We’re the physical evidence, the tangible proof on this planet that God is good. There’s no higher calling, and there’s no greater truth." -Graham Cooke

_____________________________________________________

Ed vs Ad

If we spent our efforts on education instead of advertising, imagine how well informed we might be.

Education consists of information and context, objectivity and principles considered.  Tedious but necessary for an honest life.

Advertising consists of presentation for quick persuasion, exclusion of alternatives, and hiding the real cost.  It's a business strategy to influence our choices and instill product loyalty whether it's fast food or fast news.

There is little education available via the mainstream media.  Most of what we're offered by commercial media is more appropriately categorized as advertising.  Objective reporting has been generally removed from modern journalism, and perhaps deliberately. (ref)(ref)(ref)

Do your own analysis.  Watch for the 'poison pills'.

• BECAUSE - a commentary that goes beyond the facts to 'because' (the supposed reason someone did something) often assigns a preferred motive.
      "He did this, obviously because he hoped to ...."
  Attributing a motive allows the commentator to define the character and integrity of an individual without evidence beyond their own preferential interpretation of events.  

Motivation cannot be so simply assigned, and doing so is extraordinarily inaccurate, always.  What I think you think is not useful.

• RESTATING the alternate interpretation - confident reiteration of false information will often persuade.
    "His testimony completely vindicates our ...," is one side's preferred interpretation.
    "The testimony unveils even deeper collusion between ...," is another side's preferred interpretation of precisely the same event.
  If you follow the news just on your favorite commercial media, you'll likely believe the biased version offered without legitimate reason for doing so.
  

• EMOTIONAL INCITEMENT - an emotionally charged presentation of the news (product) attempts to engage us in their favor by emotional rhetoric.  Simple statements about complex subjects are easy to inflate and bend.
  "He met with the Russians!  He's a traitor!"  "She deleted her emails!  She's a traitor!" "He tapped my phones!"
  The issues are more complex, and the simple, emotionally charged presentation tends to reinforce bias rather than inform.  The technique is designed to engage and satisfy a particular market segment.

• VISUAL MANIPULATION - sponsors spent $74.7 billion on tv ads.  The figure does not include print and web.  Advertising and neuromarketing target us and our children, and it's done for profit, not as a service.  From a sexy book cover to a cute dog driving a car to a fun clown with fast food, what we're offered by the media is persuasion, not information.

Most media output (including commercial news) is more appropriately categorized as advertising than as information.  Today, they're all competing for sales, working for revenue and not for public service.

 Teach your children well; and yourself.  If we don't clearly and fully understand, we're likely to be misinformed, perhaps even biased without adequate reason.  We desperately need objectivity and principle in discussions today, and it's a difficult battle, one for which our children must be equipped.  
As my wife would suggest, don't be an idiot.     

Prove it!

From the 17th century to today, scientific method looks like this - you begin with your thoughts (hypothesis) on a subject - 

• observe
• measure and experiment
• review and revise the hypothesis based on the result

The method proves or disproves your thinking.  It's proved if you're able to to reliably reproduce the expected result.

That's how we learn, and if we're smart, we'll change and grow.

Relationship is a good example.  Today's thought - in relationships, anger does harm.

• by observation, we note that anger produces division and weakens the bond between us.
• by measure, 
• the more often anger intrudes, the more fractured the relationship becomes.  
• the more intense the anger, the greater the fracture.
• by experiment, we find that understanding and objective communication strengthen the relationship and provide a positive experience for the parties.
• if we're smart, we'll review and revise our communication methodology accordingly.

Okay, that's helpful, but we'll only benefit if we actually do what we've proven is best.
We've all known folks with regular anger content in their relationships.  Even ourselves, perhaps.  Knowing the truth is not the same as doing it.

___________________________________________________

So here's another life issue.
“Try this test," God says.  "Bring a small part of your harvest to me so there can be food in my house. Test me!  If you do this, I will bless you.  Good things will come to you like rain falling from the sky.  You will have more than enough of everything."
And again, "Give and it will be given to you, in full measure and more than enough."

We can prove or disprove the offered hypothesis.

Interestingly, the science agrees.  

• Most folks are naturally clingy about their finances.  Over time, it can become a fear-based character trait, a lifestyle.
• Those who give are less concerned about having, about getting ahead.  
• Giving seems to relieve them of the fear associated with perhaps not having enough, and they're able to live more confidently, more reasonably.  
• The change in them enables opportunity and productivity that before perhaps was hidden under the rug of insecurity.
• And interestingly, it opens relationships for helping each other.  It's a life changer.
• Note: the change comes following a more benevolent heart, BUT if you give in order to get something in return, no change.  You'll still be unchanged and emotionally crippled.

Understanding the science (psychology, in this case) doesn't minimize the offer our Lord makes.  Most of the instructions we find in scripture are practical advice, things that work best in life.  He instructs us practically like a father teaching his children would.  He lays out how things are likely to play out based on the choices we make.  Is that a blessing?  Of course.  Miraculous?  Yes; miraculous as in giving us a path none would find without His help.

Givers worry less, smile more, and enjoy life more.  There's more involved than just the gift, of course.

Okay, I'll shut up.

A Trillion Dollars

We've spent that much on LBJ's war on poverty, or maybe more.*  When Johnson was president, the national poverty rate was about 23% (Census Bureau figures).   It's about 13.5% now, but more people are in poverty because of our population growth.  We've fluctuated between 10% and 15% for fifty years.

We've spent a lot on the war.  How did we do? Our effort centered around four pieces of legislation:

• The Social Security Amendments of 1965, which created Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits for retirees, widows, and the disabled, financed by an increase in the payroll tax cap and rates.

• The Food Stamp Act of 1964, which made food assistance, at the time only a pilot program, permanent.

• The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which established the Job Corps, the VISTA program, the federal work-study program and a number of other initiatives. It also established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), the arm of the White House responsible for implementing the war on poverty and which created the Head Start program.

Household wealth distribution; household income figures are similar.

• The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, signed into law in 1965, which established the Title I program subsidizing school districts with a large share of impoverished students, among other provisions. ESEA has since been reauthorized, most recently in the No Child Left Behind Act.

Actually, it worked, but did it work well?  

Many do find their way out of poverty each year, and many enter.  Common detrimental circumstances are a change in head of household, job loss, unexpected health-care costs, and the decline in value of wages over the years.  

The intent of our war was to help folks rise out of poverty to self-sufficiency.  Was there any downside to our efforts?  Do the programs need to be reviewed and regularly refined.  Yes, certainly.  We're the world's wealthiest nation, yet more than 20% of our children still live in poverty.  

Impediments to progress:  

• Businesses count on public assistance for their low-paid employees. Walmart, as an example, costs the community around $1 million per year for each super-center because of their labor practices and low wages. Referred to as 'corporate welfare' by many, the company depends on federal assistance for their employees; it's part of a common business model.  
• According to a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), the federal minimum wage would be $21.72 per hour if it had kept pace with increases in productivity since 1968. Those productivity increases have raised incomes for the wealthy alone, not for the workforce.
• Wages for the lower 80% have stagnated or declined.  The minimum wage is worth 20% less than it was fifty years ago.
• Real college costs are up 800% since 1965 when a summer at minimum wage would pay for it.  At $1.44 trillion, student loans now exceed auto loans and credit card debt.
• Health-care costs have risen similarly, more in our country than others.  As costs increase without commensurate gains in income, families fall down the ladder.

  Imagine the opportunities available to the wealthiest quintile compared to the rest.  Imagine the differences in education and employment available to those same groups.  Our hope is to make it at least fair, to open doors for everyone.

   Everyone needs a hand.  I was particularly impressed by one wealthy fellow.  He has spent $11 million so far.  Harris Rosen, the Orlando-based founder of Rosen Resorts and Hotels, adopted a Florida neighborhood called Tangelo Park, cut the crime rate in half, and increased the high school graduation rate from 25 per cent to nearly 100 per cent.  He did it by helping, by providing needed daycare, and funding scholarships for high school graduates.
A successful businessman, he's done well for his own family and for others.  He has funded teachers and preschools, tutoring projects, and much more.  Helping others is part of his lifestyle.

     Imagine how different it might be if every Wall Street player and billionaire CEO understood such things.  And perhaps the rest of us, too.
__________________________________________

*Estimates for the war's cost vary, depending on your methods, up to fifteen trillion (Paul Ryan), and more.  Opponents include in the total the outlays of Social Security and Medicare (for which we pay) as though it was the 'government's money' being spent.   Retirees and others receiving Social Security are described as receiving 'welfare benefits'.  Do your own detailed inquiry.

See Apples and Oranges for another look.

What Nature Provides

Suppose we lived on this tiny island with palm trees and beaches, fruit and fishing, and suppose we depended on a rain barrel for fresh water.  

____________________________

Rainfall Accumulation greater than or equal to our Water Needs means we'll have enough.    RA ≥ WN = OK

Rainfall Accumulation less than Water Needs means some will not have enough, inequality intrudes.   RA < WN = NOT OK

____________________________

That's an obviously simplistic introduction to the question of sustainable existence. Nature replenishes what resources it can, but there are limits.  We store what surplus we can, but there are limits there as well.

The natural cause-vs-effect is mathematically predictable. In a finite system such as an island or a planet, resources and consumption can be mapped over time. The system will progress toward equilibrium or toward exhaustion.

We suspect that current trends in population and resource-use are unsustainable, but how it might play out remains unknown. Might modern civilization collapse? We commonly portray human civilization as a relentless flow toward greater social and political complexity, economic specialization, and the development of more complex and capable technologies, all sustained by the mobilization of ever-increasing quantities of material, energy, and information. Yet this is not inevitable. In fact, cases where this seemingly near-universal, long-term trend has been severely disrupted by a precipitous collapse – often lasting centuries – have been quite common. A brief review of some examples of collapses suggests that the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.

Human and nature dynamics: Modeling inequality and use of resources in the collapse or sustainability of societies

Safa Motesharrei -- School of Public Policy and Department of Mathematics, University

of Maryland; National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)

Jorge Rivas -- Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota; Institute of

Global Environment and Society (IGES)

Eugenia Kalnay -- Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science; Institute of 

Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland,
and a family friend.  Interesting lady.  :)

For today, such modeling can be reasonably applied to arable land use, water, forestry, fishing, pollution, toxic waste, population density, and inequality between elite and commoners.

______________________________________________

The Colorado River, for example ...

Texas Senator Troy Fraser says, “The health and safety of the public overrides both industrial and environmental issues.”  

The senator is speaking about the Colorado River that flows through Austin, the state capital that is almost entirely reliant on the river for water. There is a competition among farmers, tourism, residents, and fishermen for the river's water. Rainfall has become sporadic in recent years, and the river's threshold for sustainability has been passed. For central Texas, now comes the choice of who gets the water.  Much is at stake.  What might the outcome be?

There are limits in every finite system.  Beyond the basics of consumption, the first critical variable is population size. Efficiencies of use will determine how much is wasted. Inequality will amplify risk for the majority.  Environmental changes introduces an additional variable.

Fortunately, there are solutions to each problem,
but you can't fix what you don't acknowledge.  

We'll perhaps need a more comprehensive discussion than we've managed so far.
______________________________________________________

The debate continues among scientists and interested observers, of course.  This isn't the first time doomsday criers have filled the air with dire predictions.  It continues to be difficult to extract objectivity from it all.  Meanwhile, things continue to change, and several thresholds are now behind us.