Can morality be compartmentalized?

Posted on June 24, 2016 by BigBill

Many years ago, some good friends of mine posed a question to me. They wanted to know if I thought that someone who cheated on their spouse could be trusted in business. It wasn’t a casual question to them; they were concerned because they had discovered someone they were working with had done so and wanted my opinion. I assume they were considering whether they should end their working relationship because they didn’t think they could trust their partner who had an adulterous relationship. (They made it clear this wasn’t a one-time thing but a life-pattern for this person.)

On the surface, this seems like a no brainer. Of course you can; people do it all the time. I know people who would never dream of going back on their agreement in business, who have also had affairs. I’ve also known people who have no qualms about “sharp business practices” (a euphemism for being less than completely honest in their business dealings), but are proud of never having had affairs.

But think about it a bit. Marriage is the most intimate of all relationships. And marriage vows are viewed as a contract. So how could you trust someone in a business situation when they are willing to lie (either explicitly or by omission) to the person with whom they are in the most fundamental of all relationships?

The water is muddy. Most experts say that we don’t know exactly how many people in a relationship cheat; we can’t even say for sure how “cheating” is defined. Is cybersex cheating? Some people feel it is; others don’t. Then, scientists have no reliable way of knowing when people respond on surveys if they’re telling the truth. It’s hard to get people to be honest if that would mean admitting to something that society feels is wrong. The Kinsey studies done in the 50’s are pretty widely viewed today as being incorrect either in methodology or conclusions; mailed surveys may be flawed or not statistically valid, etc. etc. etc. Also, simply remaining monogamous may or not be what’s important; people in open relationships may not expect monogamy from their partners. And are you “moral” if you have slept with someone other than your partner, if you didn’t lie to them about it?

Also, when it comes to questions of morality it seems to me that there is some kind of gradation involved. It’s a combination of the “seriousness” of the deed coupled with frequency. For example, does taking a life make me a murderer? Most would agree it does. But does telling one lie make me a liar? Most would say it might, but the context is important. How big a lie? What was my intent? Is it part of a pattern? And so forth. So does having an affair make a person an adulterer? Technically, I suppose it does, but I also think there is a difference between a person who has a one-night stand after drinking too much, and a guy I know who has had a girlfriend (or several) on the side throughout his marriage.

But back to my friends’ question. They were in a business relationship with a person whom they knew to be cheating on his wife. They were asking me a very practical question about whether I thought this person could (and should) be trusted in business. I happened to know the man well, and I viewed him to be an honest man in business. I suspect he was able to convince himself that the two issues were completely separate. I imagined he had rationalized his cheating to himself; “I really do love my wife; I provide well for her and our kids; it’s just physical and I don’t care for the other women like I do my wife” and on and on.

As I consider this question now, I think that attempting to explain this as compartmentalization is all nothing more than hand-waving rationalization. I think that a standard of morality applies to everything. People may think that they are honest people if they don’t cheat on taxes or if they always honor their agreements in business, but if they have an affair, they are lying to their wife (or husband) and are not living up to their self-established standards. It’s true, they probably have convinced themselves that they are not really being dishonest, but I think that type of compartmentalization is nothing more than an attempt to dodge the reality.

It goes to the concept of the Good Life that I’ve written about previously; I establish the type of person I want to be through careful thought and introspection, and then I try to live up to that. If I view myself as an honest man, I cannot then be honest in one facet of my life (say, business) and have it be OK to lie to Cathy. Or even myself.

Especially myself.

(Editorial note: as I re-read this, it occurs to me that this may look like a thinly-veiled confession. It isn’t.)

Posted in Family, General commentary on the world as I see it..., Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment

The Scottish National War Memorial

Posted on June 8, 2016 by BigBill

For our twenty-fifth anniversary, Cathy and I went to England and Scotland and had a “smashing time.” We stayed in London for a couple of days at either end of our trip, but for the most of it we lit out for the hinterlands to wander along Hadrian’s Wall, explore the Lake District (both in Northern England not far from Scotland’s border, and then to Edinburgh for nearly a week of steeping ourselves in the history and sights of Scotland. It was wonderful.

I think pretty much everyone has a wee bit o’ Scotland in them, particularly when enjoying a nice single malt. In my case it’s reinforced with an ancestral connection. I admit it’s a tenuous link, but there nonetheless; my grandfather several times removed on Mom’s side was one Angus Cowan, late of Scotland. And a bit of research led me to the fact that although the Cowans were apparently of little historical interest, they were related to the Calhouns, who had their own tartan. Perhaps influenced by a little Scotch tasting prior to walking by the store, I decided it would be a great idea to honor my Scottish heritage by buying a kilt in the family (?) tartan. IMG_0383OK, so for a half-Australian-half-Mayflower-American (with maybe a little Dutch thrown in for good measure) that’s a bit of a stretch, but what the hell. It was a VERY nice Scotch tasting. And truth be told, I had been thinking it would be cool to own a kilt ever since my sister Kathleen developed an interest in Scotland and made me realize what a damn cool little country it is. Not to mention the Angus Cowan connection and all.

Anyway, I’m a little fuzzy on the chronological sequence, but during that week we also toured the Edinburgh Castle and Holyroodhouse (the residence the British royal family occupies when she’s visiting), and toured the Highlands (actually, a pretty small section of them in southern Scotland), and became enamored with the Scottish history. A good case can be made that The Enlightenment started in Scotland; it’s clear that Scottish philosophers and scholars contributed mightily to it at the very least. It’s also true that much of England’s fighting in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries was done by Scottish highlanders; even today images of kilt-wearing, bag-pipe playing soldiers marching into cannon fire stirs even the least-patriotic heart. (At least it does if you’ve had a wee dram of two.)

Growing up as a JW doesn’t lend itself to much in the way of martial activities; we didn’t play soldier, join the Boy Scouts or any of that stuff, as being too connected to a militaristic view. While we didn’t consider ourselves pacifists (opposed to all war), we didn’t support (nor did we oppose) our military; we viewed ourselves as separate from it. This in spite of the fact that Dad served as a naval officer during World War II, and was proud enough of it that he specifically wanted it mentioned in his obituary at his death. Interesting dichotomy there, but that’s for another post.

P6080123So anyway, I wasn’t militaristic, and didn’t think of myself of a patriot. So it’s interesting to me that when we were touring the Edinburgh Castle and came to the Scottish National War Memorial, how profoundly it affected me. We had decided to spend the day wandering around the castle (it’s huge, and made up of numerous buildings, battlements, residences and museums); I didn’t even know there was a war memorial until I was in front of it. Originally constructed after the end of WWI to honor the fallen of that war, it now is dedicated to Scots (men, women and even animals) in all the conflicts since then as well. There were friezes of Scotsmen going into battle in World War I, World War II, and even a room dedicated to the animals who supported the troops in war (horses, mules, even dogs and camels). At any rate, as I was wandering through the various rooms of the memorial, looking at the paintings, friezes, statues, battalion flags and the like, suddenly a powerful feeling of connection to the soldiers came over me. imagesI won’t say it was a recollection (obviously I hadn’t been there!) but that’s as close as I can come to describing it. I felt like I understood how they felt; the anticipation of the battle, the connection to their fellow soldiers, even their fear. There was also an almost overwhelming feeling of sadness and loss at the same time. My eyes actually filled with tears and I had to leave. It took me completely by surprise.

Even now I can get back into that moment with very little effort. I really can’t explain it. Maybe it was triggered by my new-found connection to Scotland (being a proud owner of a kilt and all!) But if there is such a thing as reincarnation I would suspect I must have been a soldier in a past life.

 

Posted in Family | Leave a comment

Head vs heart

Posted on June 1, 2016 by BigBill

I have always lived inside my head. Or more accurately, I’ve been accused of thinking too much about stuff. I’ve been admonished to use my heart more, by which I assume what was meant was that I should be more in touch with feelings, and use feelings to guide my decisions.

This seems to me to be just silly, assuming I really understand what these (undoubtedly) well-wishing people mean. A “feeling” is pretty much synonymous with a hunch. So would that mean that, rather than critically evaluating a potential action, weighing pros and cons, it would be better to go with hunches? I think not. Examining hunches, now that might be productive; but that would mean that we’re back to critical evaluation of pros and cons and I’m “back in my head.”

Maybe what was really meant was that I tend to over-analyze things. And I admit that “paralysis by analysis” is something I worry about; knowing when it’s time to stop thinking and start acting is a skill that I could work on.

But that’s not the same thing. It seemed almost like that “thinking” was viewed negatively. This baffles me. How could the development and application of critical thinking skills be a bad thing?

I have a friend who’s a computer programmer. He told me one time that he sees things in black and white, either/or, ones and zeroes. I see things in shades of grey. Most things to me are not absolutes: right or wrong, good or bad. I can see both sides of a debate fairly quickly if I want to. But for me what happens is that, after looking at all the various facts and positions, I come to a conclusion. I assume then, that if people have access to the same facts that I do, they would naturally come to the same conclusion that I have. When they don’t, I figure that they must have access to different facts, or that they place different weights on them that I do.

What this process leads to sometimes (unfortunately) is an unwillingness to act, because I’m not sure I’ve got enough information to make the “right” decision. So I gather more data. But that obviously has its downside; how to know when there’s enough information to make the right decision?

My friend’s solution to that is to (metaphorically) look out the window at any given time, and with the information that is available at that time, make his decision. He then moves ahead to play out that decision until it comes time to make another decision, and so forth.

While I think there’s merit to that process, it seems risky; what if gathering just a little bit more information would substantively change the decision and its associated action?

But there I am inside my head again.

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it..., Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment

The politics of fear

Posted on May 25, 2016 by BigBill

As I write this, I’m on a plane and the guy sitting next to me is reading a book about keeping Christian faith in a secularized world. The underlying premise, of course, is that Christianity is under attack from all sides. Now from my perspective, I don’t think Christianity is anything like being “under attack;” I would suggest the opposite is true: it seems to me that fundamental Christians are doing everything they can to impose their particular brand of religion on the rest of the country.

For instance:

  • Passing a law that puts the Ten Commandments carved in stone in the courtyard of a public building.
  • Having Nativity scenes on town squares and other publicly-owned property.
  • Having a giant cross in a public park (as in San Diego).
  • Prayer in schools and at city hall meetings where city business is conducted.
  • Legislating when life begins and limiting or eliminating abortions.
  • Teaching “intelligent design” (really just thinly-veiled creationism) in public schools.

On the surface it’s tempting to say to each of the above “So what! What’s the harm in prayer in school or before public meetings? And why not a Nativity scene? After all, most of the people in that town are Christians anyway! Aren’t we a democracy? And isn’t evolution a “theory?” Why not teach alternate theories like intelligent design? Geez, lighten up!!”

Others have done a nice job addressing why each of the above bullet points presents a Constitutional problem, so I’ll not weigh in on them individually just now. I’m more interested in the whole siege mentality that some Christians seem to have. How is it that they perceive the creation/protection of an inclusive and tolerant society to be an attack on their faith?

I have read several books on the topic of fear and its use in manipulating people for political ends. The general premise of each of these books is that fear is a powerful motivator, even when that fear is groundless. One (non-political) example cited is of a news report of poor maintenance records of an airline. An isolated incident became a much bigger story with the implication that this was an endemic problem (it wasn’t), raising fears that airplanes were going to fall out of the sky. In fact the safety record of airlines is admirable; airplanes are by far the safest form of transportation in existence today. But what the story did was frighten people into driving to their destinations, which actually put them at orders-of-magnitude greater risk than flying (many more people die in car accidents than do in airplane crashes).

Knowing this characteristic, politicians (cynical beasts that they are) will prey on people’s fear, exaggerate them and then use that to manipulate them to vote based on that fear. So fear of minorities “taking over” has led to voter registration laws that favor the entrenched. The unfounded fear that illegal immigrants are draining resources from our welfare system leads to blocking any efforts at badly-needed immigration reform, and the list goes on. We’re seeing that exact situation play out right now with Trump’s candidacy for the Republican nomination.

Even more cynical is what is described in the book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” where people are induced through fear (and misinformation) to vote against their own best interests, but that’s for another entry.

So people are being manipulated through fear to behave in a way desired by whomever is stirring up the fear. Sometimes it’s cynical and sometimes inadvertent, but the end result is the same.

While I think there are more complex things at play for Christians who believe they are under attack, it strikes me that it is to the advantage of Republicans trying to get re-elected to keep them thinking that way, and that (thank God!) they are here to protect the Christians’ way of life.

Think about it. For all the promises, posturing and bloviating about memorializing Christian values in our laws, what’s actually happened? Abortion is still legal in all 50 states and we don’t have prayer in schools. With all the “hard work and support” of the Republican majorities, one would think that there would be some progress in accomplishing their stated agenda.

Unless…

I think that the Republican party leaders never intended to support such a socially conservative agenda. Historically the Republican platform has always been a staunch defender of individual rights against government incursion. But if those Christian voters can be convinced that their faith and their very way of life is under threat, they will vote for those politicians who say they are going to protect them. Keep them frightened; keep them believing they are being threatened, and they’ll stay in the Republican fold.

Then those that are stirring the pot can get on with their REAL agenda: maintaining the status quo of the rich. Okay, that’s a bit cynical. Not all Republicans are like that. And not all Democrats are the way they are characterized either.

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it..., Political commentary | Leave a comment

Is our government broken?

Posted on May 19, 2016 by BigBill

broken-congress-croppedYou hear a lot today about how “broken” Washington is. It’s true, Congress has the lowest approval ratings (for both parties) in current memory, and the last few sessions (with Republicans holding both houses) have been focused on doing little more than preventing any initiatives proposed by Obama’s administration from having a prayer. And I’ve commented before that I think that the successes that both Trump and Sanders have enjoyed during the primaries represents a “no-confidence” vote on the part of a significant number from each party for the party leadership (or perhaps against “business as usual” in Washington). Pretty much everyone agrees that our elected leaders are just not doing their job. “Why can’t anyone get anything done?” is what I hear a lot. The obvious implication being that somehow, once the legislators gets to Washington and the legislative session begins, they all forget what they were elected to do. That Washington is broken is “their fault.” But I think that’s exactly wrong. I think they are doing precisely what they were elected to do; the problem lies not in Washington, but in each home district. In other words, we have exactly the government we want.

Oh, not consciously, of course. But think about it. I live in California, which although a reliably “blue” state, my county (Orange) is about as Republican as it can get. Let’s say that the Representative from my area, a Republican named Dana Rohrabacher, suddenly woke up tomorrow and decided that “By golly, I’m done trying to get the Affordable Health Care Act repealed; the American people deserve to have access to insurance regardless of their economic situation! I’m going to go talk to my friends across the aisle and see if we can’t work out some way to make this program the best it can be for the American people! Oh sure, it’s got some problems, but I’m willing to compromise to make things work out!” My prediction is that he wouldn’t last to the next election; his constituency would hold a recall vote so fast his head would spin and he’d be out of a job in a few weeks. Plug in your favorite Democrat in the opposite situation and I suggest you’d get the same thing.

So what’s going on?

Back to our friend Rohrabacher. In his home district any Democrat running against him has virtually zero chance of getting elected. That’s interesting, because Orange County is not homogenous; in fact it is becoming heavily Latino. Santa Ana (the county seat) has more Spanish-speaking people (as a first language) than English, or so I’ve heard. And while the Hispanic population is heavier in Santa Ana, it is scattered around the county quite a bit as well. True, there are some very heavily “white” cities like Irvine and others, but it doesn’t account for the virtual death grip Rohrabacher has on his particular district. What does however is called gerrymandering. This is named after Elbridge Gerry,500px-The_Gerry-Mander_Edit a governor in Massachusetts in the early 1800s who re-drew the boundaries of his district to include areas where his supporters dominated and excluded areas where he lacked support. This effectively ensured his re-election as long as he continued to run for office. The name came from the conflation of his name and the fact that his new district looked a little like a salamander (right). The practice was copied by other politicians until it became the norm. Since members of the US Senate are elected in a statewide election (and state lines are not redrawn very easily), gerrymandering doesn’t apply in Senatorial elections but is common in House elections. As the demographics shifts, you’ll see lots of reshuffling and redrawing of districts (by both Democrats and Republicans).

If you’re in a district more evenly split, the elected official needs to balance often-competing interests, and is more likely to work with his or her counterparts in the other party to get things done. But in a gerrymandered district, there is a strong disincentive to go against the party that elected you.

Back to our initial point: unless (and until) we as a voting populace get rid of gerrymandered districts we’re going to have Washington stacked with ideologues who have no motivation nor even inclination to go against their party. The hard part is to force redistricting even (especially?) where our own positions dominate.

Until we do that we will continue to have only ourselves to blame for a “broken” Washington.

Posted in Political commentary | Leave a comment

Trump has a problem

Posted on May 13, 2016 by BigBill

images-2Actually, lots of them, but I’m thinking of one in particular here: Now that he’s the presumptive nominee for the Republican party in the upcoming presidential election, he has to figure out whether to pivot.

During the early stages of the primaries, a presidential candidate’s opponents aren’t yet anyone from the other party, they have to first winnow out the others in their own party. Since they are from the same ideological background (i.e., Party), it’s often difficult for them to differentiate themselves, so they take ideological positions that make themselves appear more “party-loyal,” and position all the others in their party in some way differently from them, and presumably less “authentic” party loyalists. The people they have to convince are generally the most ideologically-driven (imagine how strongly you would have to feel about a political party to start working to get your party elected months, sometimes years, before the election!) These are the people who are the most enthusiastic and energized, and often, the most distant (politically) from the opposite party. True party loyalists.

At the same time they have to keep in the forefront of their strategy that they can’t annoy the big money donors in the party, as that’s where the cash for the “real” race (after the nomination is locked down at the Party convention) is going to come from. It’s a bit of a tightrope to walk.

So commonly, a candidate will position themselves wherever they think they are likely to get the most support, both financially and from the party loyalists. This frequently means taking the strongest position on policy issues. As the Republican party is anti-abortion and pro-gun (they would characterize it as being “pro-life and pro-Second Amendment,” but that’s another topic), there is virtually no chance of getting the Republican party nomination unless the candidate appears totally (almost rabidly) supportive of those positions. And in fairness, the same is true on the Democrat side; the easiest way to lose support in the Democratic primary process is to appear anti-labor or anti-union. Or pick your favorite platform plank.

Anyhow, this leads to a problem. Once the primary is over and the nomination is locked down, he (or she) now needs to appeal to a broader demographic (the general population of the country), so they commonly pivot to a softer position and downplay their previous, more-radical (or fringe) positions. If they’re good (and they usually are if they’ve gotten this far), they won’t appear to completely abandon their earlier positions, just file the edges off of them to appear more centrist.

Back to Trump’s problem. He went after the most fringe, most radical arm of the Republican party loyalists early on. “Mexico is sending us drug dealers and rapists.” “I’m going to build a 20-foot wall all along the Mexican/US border. And I’m going to get Mexico to pay for it.” “We need to ban all Muslims from entering this country until we figure this thing out.” And on and on. Some simple critical thinking skills would tell you that none of these options are viable for any number of reasons, but critical thinking skills seem to be in short supply during the primary season. They did however appeal to a particular (and highly vocal) subset of the Republican loyalists. (I’ve written previously that I think part of his popularity is due to a perception of the rank-and-file republicans that their party leaders reneged on promises made.)

Trump’s challenge as he goes into the general race is to try to position himself to appeal to the largest possible group; that’s the only way to get himself elected. Right now his overall disapproval rating makes him virtually unelectable. There’s even talk of a substantial Republican group willing to vote for Clinton. (In fairness there’s some Bernie loyalists who would consider Trump over Clinton, but the size of that group is under some debate.)

So he seems to have two choices: either abandon his more radical positions and appear more “presidential,” or double down on his rhetoric. Either way he goes, there be dragons. If he abandons his oft-stated positions his current gaggle of rabid supporters will likely bail on him as just another cynical, lying politician. The very reason that many are supporting him now is because he says he’s not just another cynical, lying politician; he’s “authentic.” He “says it like it is.” (This assumes “it is” means you’re a living in a racist, misogynistic world, I guess.) He’s been able to keep doing what he’s doing up until now largely (IMHO) because he’s been funding his own candidacy and hasn’t take money from big-money donors (other than himself, of course), or so he says. If he had needed anyone else’s cash I suspect no one would have given him any money as long as he stuck to his ridiculous rhetoric. But I heard the other day that he doesn’t plan on continuing to foot the bill, so presumably if/when he gets the nomination he’ll have to go looking for bucks.

If he doesn’t pivot but continues to what he’s been doing (basically, spew vitriol) because it’s working so well for him, it’s hard to see how he can get elected. Personally, I don’t think there’s enough people who are angry or disgusted enough to vote the anger ballot, even if he were the ideal person (a big “if”). His negative numbers are “yuge, just YUGE!” which gives me some hope.

Maybe he’s betting that there’s more anger against government in the general population and he can tap into that. It is out there; no question of that. The big question is whether or not The Donald is the answer. I think a fair number of people are willing to overlook or ignore Trump’s more outrageous antics because, for them, the alternatives are less palatable. I have a good friend who is pretty conservative (actually, more libertarian than Republican), who maintained in conversation with Cathy and me the other day that Trump hasn’t really said anything racially hateful. I find it baffling how he could say that; frankly I think the issue for him is that he absolutely refuses to consider voting for Clinton and Trump appears to be shaping up to be the only alternative. So he’s struggling for reasons to support Trump.

So whether he Pivots or Stays the Course, Trump has a problem. Neither option looks viable. This November, I hope the country is smart enough to give him the shellacking at the polls that he’s so richly earned.

Posted in Political commentary | Leave a comment

Same data, different conclusions

Posted on May 5, 2016 by BigBill

One of my intellectual scotomos is that I’ve always felt that if another person had access to the same information that I do, they would arrive at the same conclusions that I have. That’s patently untrue, yet I cling to the belief (on some levels anyway). The corollary of course is that, if the other person hasn’t arrived at the same conclusions as me, they clearly didn’t have access to the same set of facts that I do. So maybe I need to explain to them what they’ve missed. Or something.

As one might anticipate, that process doesn’t always turn out well. Or even most of the time.

Still, I think there’s something to be evaluated here. Why is it that two honest, intelligent and thoughtful people can look at the same information and come to very different conclusions? Of course I’m not talking about the “If it was good enough for my dad, it’s good enough for me” argument (I won’t dignify it by calling it a line of reasoning); I’m referring to people who have thought it through, tried to evaluate the facts rather than act strictly on emotion or their history of unchallenged attitudes, and still arrive at a very different conclusion than I do.

Lakoff_bookI read a book a while ago by George Lakoff, a cognitive and linguistic scientist from Berkely (naturally) titled “Moral Politics.” He looks at that question from the perspective of politics. He examines the underlying assumptions/perspectives of people to see what might be going on. It’s a fascinating model (I happen to be convinced that he’s correct, but someone else reading his book may think otherwise, of course!)

Anyhow, the model he proposes (with all the usual caveats that it’s just a proposed model, I am almost certainly oversimplifying as he spent a great deal of time developing his reasoning, it’s not either/or but a continuum, etc. etc. etc.), is that there are essentially two ways of thinking of the role of the government in our lives: that of a nurturing mother or a stern but loving father, and that people define moral behavior based on those underlying perspectives. Applying that (for example) to welfare recipients, it would be immoral to withhold help from people who need it (the nurturing mother perspective); on the other hand, it would be immoral to give something to someone who didn’t earn it, as that would be supporting laziness and sloth (the stern but loving father model). Same situation, but the underlying perspective of government’s role dictates which action is “moral.” It’s fascinating that the exact same action (providing assistance) is either moral or immoral, depending upon your underlying view. And of course, most people are unaware of their biases; they probably assume that everyone looks at the world the way they do.

Whether Lakoff is correct in his model or not is for other people to establish, but I like it, at least as far as politics (which is all he’s really talking about anyway). It answers a lot of questions. I’m guessing that if one were to think enough about it there would be revealed lots of other models that would apply in other branches of human behavior.

I had dinner not long ago with an acquaintance who has pretty much the polar opposite of my views on several things. He believes very strongly that every American not only has the right to carry a gun, but that they should, because walking around armed would help to prevent bad guys doing bad things. I have written in previous posts why I think that’s not only not a good idea, but in fact is a major factor contributing to the violence in our country. Additionally, he also believes with absolute conviction that Obama is a Muslim, not born in the US (and thus should never have been allowed to become president), it’s a complete mystery why anyone would EVER vote for someone as dishonest as Hillary Clinton, and that Donald Trump is “the most exciting thing to happen in US politics in my memory” (and that is a quote.) So there’s a pretty big gap between his views of the world (at least some of them) and mine.

This guy is very intelligent, (a physician, in fact), congenial and fun to be around. I called him an acquaintance rather than a friend simply because I haven’t known him long enough yet to call him a friend, not because I don’t enjoy his company.

Nothing in our conversation made me want to rethink my attitudes and opinions, but it made me think more about what assumptions, preconceived notions or scotomas shape our beliefs; hence this post.

It seems that intellect really has little to do with one’s attitudes; the paradigm through which one views the world probably plays a much greater role. Creating an echo chamber to live in, cherry picking data and not looking for blind spots all contribute to this.

It’s little wonder to me, as I think about it, that we have such opposing views; it’s actually more of a surprise that anyone agrees with anyone else on anything!

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it..., Political commentary, Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment

Echo chambers (part 2)

Posted on April 28, 2016 by BigBill

I can't here youIn my last entry I wrote about how too many of us have created an environment where we only hear what we want to hear. I think how I may be guilty of this as well; at least to some extent. After all, when I listen to jackasses like Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump spew hatred, racial invective and errors of logic (horrors!!), I just get angry. And since I’m trying to develop a more peaceful, accepting and forgiving side to my personality (good luck with that, Bill), why should I deliberately expose myself to things that are going to make me mad? (A bit of tortured syntax there, but I think you get my idea.)

I thought that West Wing was a phenomenal TV series. Maybe it was because I liked the politics of the protagonist and his staff, but in my defense I think it made some excellent points and generally told a good tale. In the context of this entry, there’s one sequence that stands out to me. I’ve tried to find the appropriate section on YouTube (so far unsuccessfully), so I’ll try to explain it briefly.

A Supreme Court Justice position has become available, and with a Republican Congress President Bartlett (Martin Sheen’s character) is faced with the next-to-impossible task of finding a replacement supportive of his beliefs who will be approved by the opposition party. In the course of his vetting process, he decides his ideal candidate is a liberal judge, Evelyn Baker Lang (played by Glen Close). He knows there’s little chance of her being approved by Congress without considerable maneuvering, so in order to hide his intentions he invites a number of potential candidates from across the political spectrum for meetings, including Christopher Mulready (played by William Fichtner, a great character actor) who would gain an easy Republican approval, but who has almost the exact opposite views as Bartlett.

Anyhow, Mulready is no dummy, realizes that he is not being seriously considered, and says something to Barlett like “Of course, you’ll have to nominate someone middle of the road in order to have a hope of approval. Too bad. That’s safe politically, but good law comes from spirited and honest disagreement.” As he’s leaving, he runs into Lang and it turns out that they knew each other from law school; indeed they were (and still are) close friends. They disagree on most things, but have remained friends over the years; it’s a friendship based on mutual respect and a willingness to truly listen. They still disagree, but they never lose that respect and the friendship upon which that friendship is built. Bartlett solves his dilemma by convincing another Justice to retire and nominates both Lang and Mulready to the fill the vacancies. Excellent episode.

A real-life example of life imitating art is the relationship of Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. Understand that I am no admirer of the positions of our most recently-departed Justice. I do recognize he was an extremely smart and capable jurist, but while I admired his mind, I disagreed with nearly every position he took. I have friends who had no regard for him at all because of his views, to the point that they were unwilling to see him in any but a negative light. While this was somewhat tempting for me as well, I found it extremely interesting when I read prior to his death that one of his best friends on the Court was Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. She represented the ACLU prior to her appointment (just try to get her approved today!) and I am quite sure she disagreed with Scalia on nearly everything as well, but they were still close friends. Fascinating.

Next, I think of Bob Dole. Dole was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1996 and at the time I thought he was totally the wrong person to be president. But it turns out, Senator Dole was known for his ability to cross the aisle and make deals with the Democrats. I am not sorry I voted for Clinton, but I would have to admit that Dole would likely have been an effective POTUS, largely because of his ability to listen to and understand his opponents on the other side of the aisle, and build a consensus.

I read that Nancy Reagan was close friends with Katharine Graham, the owner of The Washington Post. The WaPo is pretty reliably liberal in it’s editorial positions, so having a Reagan-Graham friendship is a bit surprising, particularly since, by all accounts, it seems it was a genuine friendship. They’d get together regularly over brunch, and maintained their friendship throughout (and after) Reagan’s tenure as Commander in Chief. Clearly their nearly opposite political views were no impediment.

Now, take a look at Ted Cruz. He refuses to compromise on anything. Trump is correct (one of the few times, IMHO) when he says Cruz is roundly despised by nearly everyone in Congress for his refusal to budge on his ideology. Former House Speaker John Boehner called him “Lucifer in the flesh, saying he’s “never worked with a more miserable son-of-a-bitch in my life” in a recent forum at Stanford University.  Being that much of an intransigent idealogue may make him the darling of the “Drag the government to the bathtub and drown it” crowd and the other nut-jobs in the far right wing of the Republican party, but that’s not how you get laws passed. Cruz accomplished pretty much nothing as Senator other than an ideologically-driven shutdown of the government, which cost the US economy billions of dollars, not to mention making Congress look like a bunch of whiney third-graders badly in need of a timeout. And amazingly, he’s actually proud of that, and has gone on record as stating he’d do it again!!

Back to echo chambers (and how to tear them down). We need to stop, take a deep breath, and start having respectful conversations. Not rehashes of someone else’s talking points, not ad-hominem attacks, and especially not shout-downs.

The first step in arriving at a consensus is to understand the other’s perspective. And that will never happen if we get all our information from people with whom we agree on everything.

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it..., Political commentary | Leave a comment

Echo chambers

Posted on April 22, 2016 by BigBill

Dorothy_FoxAbout the only time I will watch Fox News is if I want to see how stupid people can be. Their broadcasts are full of errors of logic (I think they’re deliberate), one-sided commentary and over-simplification. I have friends who get virtually all their information from Fox and tell me they like it because it’s “fair and balanced.”

I find this in itself entertaining (in an aggravating kind of way), because from my perspective, Fox News is neither fair nor balanced. In fact, I think it’s somewhat of a stretch to call Fox a “news” show; it’s become mostly commentary and tilts so strongly to the right that it’s little more than a tool for the right wing of the Republican party. It wouldn’t be so bad if it were representative of a more moderate branch of the party (if such a thing even exists any more), but I don’t see that at all.

I do watch MSNBC on occasion; I recognize that Rachel Maddow and many of the others are unabashed liberals, but their views often align more closely with mine so I don’t find MSNBC as objectionable as Fox. But I recognize they also have a bias.

That brings me to this point: no one really listens any more.

Let me ‘splain.

Listening is not a passive process. It requires focus, attention and thoughtful consideration of what’s being said. It’s not simply waiting for your alternate to pause to take a breath so you can jump in with whatever you’ve been planning to say. It’s not “listening” to the others so you can better shape the defense of your point or trash their point. It’s attempting to understand what your partner in conversation is saying; the thought process that’s behind it. It’s part of the critical thinking function, without which we are all just in an echo chamber and we never have the opportunity to learn anything.

I think that’s part (a BIG part) of the problem we’re confronted with in the US today. We’ve got people on both the left and the right that are absolutely convinced of the “rightness” of their position. And they don’t take the time to try to understand the other side of whatever the debate might be. They demonize, trivialize and dismiss the other perspective as being worthless and beneath consideration. And while I honestly believe that this is primarily found on one side of the current political debate, I also admit it’s found on both sides. Any discussion that devolves to ad hominem attacks (“Oh yeah? Well you’re just stupid!”) is worse than a waste of time.

So how did we get here? It’s tempting to say that this has always been a problem, and there’s truth to that. Discussions around strongly-held positions have always been dangerous territory (the homily “never talk about religion or politics” comes to mind), but it really seems to me that there has been a fundamental change in our national conversation. I live in Orange County, California. While California is recognized as a reliably “blue” state (nearly every Democratic presidential candidate has carried California in the general election in current memory; both our Senators are Democrat), Orange County is one of the most conservative counties in the country. Interestingly, the demographics of the county are changing; while South OC is pretty white bread, Santa Ana (the county seat) is predominately Latino. Whether that will lead to a political sea change is doubtful however, because of the gerrymandering of the voting districts. In other words, most of our Congressional seats are unlikely to switch parties, because the districts are drawn in a way that protects the party in power. So while Santa Ana will elect a liberal Democrat (in line with Latino interests), South OC will stay bright red Republican.

What’s the problem with that? I think that historically, while politics have been messy, slow and rancorous, eventually they would get it right. Winston Churchill said that the US can be relied upon to do the right thing, once everything else has been tried. Even during the Vietnam era, with rioting in the streets over both the war and race, politicians were talking to each other. They disagreed strongly, but respected one another. I listen to Ted Cruz and his ilk today and am disheartened, even frightened by his unwillingness to accept any view but his own as having any validity. And I’m not alone; he frightens people in his own party. As much as I also dislike Trump, he got it right when he said that no one in Congress likes Cruz; he’s alienated nearly everyone by his intransigence.

And I think the Internet has contributed to this. Not directly, of course, but it’s made it easy to select information sources that have the same bias as you do. So I can set it up as my own echo chamber; that’s straightforward and a choice I could make. That I can watch out for.

But it’s more insidious than that; the internet can actually select for you what information you receive. Search algorythms make this happen. For example, if I search on Google or Yahoo for “anthrogenic climate change,” the search engines remember that. If I then search for “species decline” or “polar bear extinction,” the algorythms that drive the search engines put those together, draw conclusions about what interests me, and that changes the results I get from searches: I start to see what Google thinks I’m looking for, based on previous searches. That information gets sold to companies with their own algorythms for mining Big Data, and presto! I get a robocall from GreenPeace, the Sierra Club and ACLU asking for donations. On the other hand, if I do searches for “pro-life statistics” and “climate fluctuations in history” for example, a different set of robocalls or fliers comes my way, this time from “Citizens for Protection of American Values” or some such, asking for money to fund anti-abortion initiatives.

Back to Fox News. As I say above, if I want to, I can choose to listen to Fox News for breaking events, and set up podcast subscriptions, news feeds and follow blogs that all reinforce my already-held convictions. Nothing would pop into my view that would conflict with what I think is true, so even if I’m so inclined, I’d never have the opportunity to thoughtfully consider a contrary position. That’s also true for the other end of the political spectrum. I could have all-progressive sources that would gradually convince me that’s all there is.

And that’s exactly the problem. Unless (and until) we learn that we are a large and highly diverse country, and that no one ideology can (or should) meet the needs of everyone, we are never going to have a workable government.

With all that said, I’m still not interested in listening to bloviators on Fox. There’s other ways to find stuff out.

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it..., Political commentary | Leave a comment

Party implosion (part 2)

Posted on April 16, 2016 by BigBill

2000px-Republicanlogo.svgIn my last post I set up an explanation for the chaos I see in the Republican party today. I think the two front runners (Trump and Cruz) represent very different unforeseen outcomes from that decision 40 years ago to “reset” the Republican party to make it more appealing to fundamental, mostly blue-collar Christians.

First and most frightening (to those of us who have no interest in a religious state, even a titular Christian one) is Ted Cruz. When Newt Gingrich got elected in the so-called “Republican Revolution” of 1994 with his “Contract for America,” it represented a dramatic change in our politics. It seemed as if Reagan’s policies of small federal government, tax reduction and the reduction of the national debt were at last going to get traction. (At least his stated policies; much of it today appears to have been smokescreen, as the size of government, the national debt and taxes all went up during his administration!) Reagan’s “trickle-down” economics (also called “supply-side”) claimed that by giving tax breaks to businesses they would hire more people and everyone would benefit. (I’m working on another post that addresses the fallacy of supply-side economics.) Newt and Robert Dole spearheaded this electoral sweep of both houses of Congress, giving Republicans the apparent mandate to implement Reagan’s legacy policies.

Fast forward to today. Ted Cruz is today’s poster child for Getting Government Out of Our Lives (reduce taxes, pay down the national debt, don’t you dare touch my guns, and let us mandate creationism be taught in public schools under the guise of “equal time”!), unless of course we’re talking about abortion, and then it’s more like “If God had wanted women to have rights over their own bodies He’d have given them a penis!!” On the surface it would appear he’s the embodiment of everything the Republican wonks of 1964 could have asked for. But I made the case in my last post that back then, they just wanted to be in power and not become marginalized, so they positioned themselves to appeal to the fundamental Christian voter. Their real agenda had nothing to do with religion or “Christian Values;” that was a façade. But now that this significant voting block is stirred up, they want delivery on what was promised and you get Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and a few others of similar ilk as flag bearers. These guys represent those who were promised by the Republican party in 1964 that they would bring God back to America through prayer in schools, abortion prevention, and return to the values of past generations, and they still believe it’s going to happen. While that was never the intention of the party leaders (in my opinion), along comes Cruz who shows every intention of playing out the charade.

So why is that a problem for the party leaders? As long as they stay in power, what’s the harm in pandering to the fringes of the party? As I see it, the problem with Ted is that he is an unbending, scorched-earth ideologue who doesn’t play nice with anybody, and in particular his own party leadership. That makes him both uncontrollable and bad for the party. For good or ill, we have a two-party system. That means to get anything done, compromise is absolutely required. But by all accounts, Ol’ Ted seems incapable of compromise. Take, for example the shutdown of the government. Not a good thing; it’s widely viewed by virtually every person outside of the Washington Beltway (and many inside) that shutting down the government (and thereby holding up literally billions of dollars of payments to government contractors and employees) is a great example of what’s wrong with Washington today. So when Cruz and a few of his equally-ideological cronies in Congress caused the government shutdown a few years ago over a budget impasse, Republican Congressional and Party leaders got egg on their face. Having no interest in making themselves look ever more stupid by doing it again, more reasonable Republicans were unhappy when Intransigent Ted was not only proud of his accomplishment; he showed every sign of being willing to do it again. So the Republican Party leadership, confronted with the harvest of what they sowed 40 years ago, is trying to stop the Frankenstein’s monster they created.

It seems that Trump’s comment that “everybody hates Ted Cruz” is pretty close to accurate. Everybody, that is, except for those who still believe the promise of the Party Leadership of 40-odd years ago.

That brings us to The Donald. He’s been labeled a misogynist, racist, bigot, liar and tone-deaf idiot (and that’s just from his own party leaders!), yet he’s far and away the front-runner for the Republican nomination. I think Trump represents the grass-level voters who were sold on the belief that the Republican party would actually do what they promised, and now, realizing they were hollow promises all along, are rebelling against the party leadership. Of course there’s a Coalition of the Like-Minded: the bigots, racists and misogynists who truly agree with the hate and fear he’s been spewing, but I think this is only a portion of his followers. The rest “forgive” what he says, believing he’s just a refreshing departure from politically correct campaign-speech and maintain is “telling it like it is.” It’s pretty universally understood that there’s about as much chance of the Mexican government agreeing to pay for a wall along the US-Mexico border as there is of building a sidewalk to the moon (leaving aside its probably impossibility even from a simple engineering perspective, the cost of maintaining it, policing it, and on and on), but none of that makes even a dent. And the more the party wonks try to chip away at his popularity by trotting out Mitt Romney, holding their noses and endorsing Cruz and so forth, the more his supporters love him. Again, I think these reactions represent the feelings of disenfranchisement of the party regulars who, after getting excited that “finally, there’s a party pledging to support my beliefs,” realized they’d been sold a bill of goods.

And they’ve turned on the party leadership.

Interestingly, I also think Bernie Sanders represents the same thing on the Democrat side. Most staunch liberals are fed up with their cherished programs being eroded by compromise, and appreciate that Bernie “tells it like it is.”

The thing is, most American’s are not out on the fringes (of either party). Most people describe themselves as social liberals and fiscal conservatives. Few Americans “like” the concept of abortions, or of handouts to the “undeserving” lazy people, yet they also feel that no politician should dictate what goes on in anyone’s bedroom or whether or not a pregnancy should be terminated. And most Americans are fair-minded; we realize that, while hard work and talent should be rewarded, we also should pay our fair share for infrastructure support, police and fire protection, and that it’s unconscionable that 20% of the population of the richest country the world has ever seen has no access to basic health care, or that the richest people in the country pay a tiny fraction of their income in taxes (comparatively), as we watch the middle class shrink. The vast majority of the wealth generated in the economic recovery following our Great Recession a few years ago has gone to the wealthiest 2% of the populace.

That leaves the Centrists, which as I contest, make up the majority of us and ultimately decide the elections. And while a lot of people don’t like Hillary all that much, they hate Cruz, Donald and Bernie even more (but for very different reasons).

We’ll see this coming November, but right now, I don’t see a path to the White House for anybody but Clinton. And frankly, until the Republican leadership regains control of their party and steers it back toward the center, I see them becoming more and more marginalized and unelectable.

Posted in Political commentary | Leave a comment