The Big Lie: It's still a lie -- so how do we get people to stop believing?

     “The Big Lie” is often referred to nowadays. Do they mean THE BIG LIE (Capital letters, bold)? No, that’s not quite it. Lies are common (too common) within society. Many times they are used for “social convenience”. Do you want to go out with me on Wednesday — “no, I have to wash my hair” (lying to save themselves embarrassment for saying “no”). Do you like this dress on me — “certainly, you look great” (but it really doesn’t, so you obtain short-term peace by saying “yes” even though long-term it is not be helping them). Other times, a lie is to avoid punishment or embarrassment. Of course, a pathological liar doesn’t truly know what is true or false (and doesn’t care). Pathological liars can pass “lie detector” tests because they believe whatever they say.

     No, a Big Lie is something that is unreasonable, not to be believed, outrageous. But, it keeps getting repeated — over and over and over. Many (most?) people will eventually start thinking “it keeps being repeated, maybe there is some truth to it”. This is related to “if there is smoke there must be a fire” (perhaps smoke bombs hadn’t been invented yet). And a subset of those people will start thinking “it’s said so often it must be true”. This type of brainwashing can occur even when it is the same, unreliable, person who is the only one to keep repeating the falsehood.

     If a Big Lie must be repeated many, many times to become part of the unbelievable part of your world then why would anyone continue to listen to such lies (while they still recognize them as lies)? One possible reason is that they WANT it to be true and want someone to convince them. Another is that they are “amused” by it — until it starts feeling like something to believe and be angered about. One more reason is that many people (and I am not fully not guilty) tend to “leave the channel on” — they will continue to watch/listen/gather around some television program/stream/radio broadcast that they are used to using.

     The Big Lie has certainly been around for a long, long time. It is parallel to that of hunting blinds used by duck hunters. A duck hunter will find a place with ducks around and then they will build a shelter. The shelter shouldn’t be glaring but it doesn’t really have to be hidden. At first, any ducks (or other animals that are to be targeted) will be afraid of the shelter — being new in their environment. Each successive day, they get more accustomed to it. But, at some point, they become used to it. They accept it as part of the environment. What was unusual is now normal. And the guns come out.

     Once a Big Lie has been accepted, it is very difficult to get rid of. It is now part of “normal”. Once outrageous and unbelievable, it is now everyday knowledge. A new identity has been formed which incorporates the illogic of the Big Lie. It can only be removed by methods similar to installing it in the first place or using the various methods for “deprogramming” or “debrainwashing”.

     There are a couple of defenses against Big Lies. Being solid with yourself is the biggest help — as it helps a person in many different ways and not just for resistance to Big Lies. Be comfortable with yourself, appreciate yourself, accept that your values are of importance. Alarm bells will ring louder if you are hearing from a solid place.

     The second is an old bumper sticker cliché. “Question Authority”. Actually, question everything. This is particularly unpopular with schools below the college level. Why? Well, there are conspiracy theories that I cannot disprove (very few things can be absolutely disproved) that say it is to indoctrinate students into particular mindsets. A less drastic interpretation is that questioning takes more time. Time and energy are scarce resources for our overworked and undersupported teachers. If people are trained to just accept, less time and intervention are needed to get the students to approach things as desired.

     In most universities, the opposite is typically true — questioning, research, and analysis are encouraged or even required. This is why “conservatives” firmly believe that universities are “liberal” — because they are encouraged to question. And it is a reason why “liberals” are hard to get to focus on a common effort. “Conservatives”, who are trained to obey and not investigate, are much easier to direct in common effort.

     People reading George Orwell’s novel 1984 (or “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis) once wondered how could this ever happen. Currently, we have been watching it unfold. It can happen slowly. The anecdotal frog in the pot can be boiled alive if the heat is turned up slowly.

     It is up to all of us.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

Branding: It stands for something -- but that something can change. Always examine beyond the brand name.

     Brands are a word that get tossed around a lot currently. What is a brand? At the foundation, a brand is something that gets associated with something else. A brand on a cow identifies which ranch the cow belongs to.

     Nowadays, we refer to brands with less physical types of associations. When we are in the presence of others at business situations, we are supposed to have our “elevator pitch” prepared such that we can concisely wrap up the primary characteristics that we want to have the listener associate with our name. A LinkedIn profile will do similar things and, although not usually called a brand, a CV or resumé is basically an extended brand.

     Manufacturers, or distributors, of products want to associate a brand name with a set of qualities. Although some physical qualities are part of the package, it is usually more a matter of feelings to be associated with the brand name. Brand WHOZIT is associated with excitement, reliability, quality, etc. Naturally, such companies want only positive attributes associated with the brand. There have been instances over time when negative attributes have become connected to a brand name and the company has been unable to disconnect those attributes from the brand. At that point, the brand is “retired” and no longer used. The word “Edsel” has become a generic name for a product (possibly even a good product) which has gathered negative feelings associated with the brand. You don’t want to produce an Edsel.

     Brands can also be associated with people. That is the point behind various “branding” exercises. Beyond the elevator pitch, people may want to become the person you “go to for xxxx”. Certainly, on business social media such as LinkedIn, that is a very important part of interactions.

     It was something that I lacked during the short period when I was an independent contractor. It is very difficult to create a brand when one is interested in, and produces, more-or-less anything unless the name, in itself, creates the brand. A brand focuses attributes and it is preferred that those attributes are seen as distinct from other brands. Sometimes a “brand” is a person’s name. Bill Gates is a brand — based on his life, and corporate, history. Steve Jobs is a brand as is Beyoncé. If someone talks about a “Steve Jobs” type of person, you immediately have an idea (correct or not) as to their attributes.

     Positive attributes and associations are best. Negative associations are bad but politicians recognize that people do not remember details very well or very long. Thus, “there is no such thing as bad publicity”. Name recognition is very important when you approach the ballot or are examining products on the shelf.

     One important aspect of brands is that they are sometimes given more importance than the “interior”. My Aunt and Uncle were very loyal to a US electronics brand. They would buy Brand YYYY without even looking at comparable products. They were the type of consumer that manufacturers LOVE. Later (in the 1960s) the brand name, and product line, was sold to another company which wasn’t even in the US. Quality and design went down (a sold brand doesn’t necessarily become worse upon being sold — but this one did). Product reviews were bad and my Aunt and Uncle ended up returning a few products. But still, they continued to buy Brand YYYY. They still didn’t consider competing products.

     A product brand may also be registered with a trademark to prevent others from using the same name for that same product category. This is not a clear safeguard as it is possible to have the brand be so popular that the brand becomes almost synonymous with the product description — called genericization. For example, Bayer lost the use of Aspirin as a trademarked brand because Aspirin became a common replacement name for acetylsalicylic acid. (It later did trademark the double word “Bayer Aspirin”).

     A brand, with positive recognized attributes, is very useful for a company or an individual. Is it useful for the individual making their decision according to the brand?

     Perhaps. It can reduce the effort needed to find a qualified person or product. BUT, it does NOT eliminate “checking under the hood”. Assume that you always buy trucks manufactured by DDDDD. There is a parking lot of trucks to choose from. You choose the DDDDD truck without examining it or comparing to the others. You get into the truck to start the engine and it doesn’t start. It doesn’t even make a noise. You get out and look under the hood. No engine. Whose fault is that? Whose responsibility is that?

     You can certainly validly complain about misdirection in advertising. But truly, do you expect a company to say “We proudly sell DDDDD trucks but we no longer include an engine with the purchase”? Either they bought the brand name and product line because they recognized how much the name could reduce their PR expenses or they had had the brand name for a long time and relied on its historical value. Most will try to maintain the value associated with the brand. Perhaps they will not go so far as to stop including an engine. But it may no longer be their focus as a company. Quality can decline.

     You, as a consumer, are responsible for evaluating a product, person, or political candidate. A brand name may be of use as a starting point but it is always appropriate to redefine the quality, and value, of that brand name as you examine products.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Pandora's Box: Hope always remains

     Most everyone has heard of Pandora’s Box (it should really be referred to as Pandora’s Jar) but the details are not always that clear. In Greek Mythology (and myths are those stories that help to explain the world to the surrounding society), Pandora was the first woman created by the gods. They gave her lots of positive attributes, each according to the strength and power of each individual god. They also gave her a sealed jar which was to be kept unopened (does this sound a bit like an apple in a garden?). Since curiosity is one of the prime emotions of humanity, that forbiddance was only an enticement to see what was inside the jar. When she opened up the jar, the evils of humankind leapt out into the world … but hope remained.

     The story continues to carry force just as humanity continues to have imagination and curiosity as a basic aspect of our personalities (not for everyone, but for many). In particular, humans seem to be fascinated with technology. Or, at least, advances in technology are the ones most honored by society. There are certainly those who work on philosophical, spiritual, meditative, or interrelationships that could make even more of an effect upon society if society were open to their movement and growth.

     And there we have the struggle. Oh, it is not a precise “them versus us” type of struggle. But, since technological progress can often be inserted within the economy and, thus, “valued” in monetary units it is most often valued above progress in behavior and humanity. And that is sad.

     Almost every (perhaps every) technological advance can be used for the improvement of humankind or for the advancement of a small subset of humankind. Going from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age allowed for better cooking utensils, better diet, and general tools to be used for art and construction. It also allowed for more efficient weapons. The same holds for the movement from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age.

     Perhaps, if the evolution of technology went hand-in-hand with the evolution of society, life would always improve with each step (forward or backward? A matter of opinion). I don’t know if that will ever be known as it has yet to happen, in my limited knowledge.

     During the age of the Luddites in the early 1800s, the technological step was towards automation. The displacement of skilled labor was a huge strain upon the populace and, since the general society did not recognize, and allow for, this change it was a matter of great concern to many — many who did not have monetary, or societal, influence. In such a situation, groups of people often fall back to violence even though they know that such actions will not have a long-term positive effect.

     Two hundred years later, we have yet to fully absorb the changes to society brought about from automation. And now we have a useful generative AI inserted into our society. Understood well by general society — no. Understood, and utilized optimally by general industry — no. Societal effects upon the general population researched and worked with for a gradual, and less painful, shift in society — no.

     But we will continue to move forward. The technology cannot be “put back into the bottle”. We could learn from the past and research the general societal and economic effects from such technology but will we? Ah, that is up to all of us — and that does not give us good odds on the results.

     So, here comes AI “out of the bottle”. It is causing turbulence and will cause more (just how much is yet unknown) along with economic displacement. As is true of other technologies, there are “two edges”. But, as is also true of prior technologies, there has been no concerted effort to prepare for the shift in society, jobs, and integration with other factors which will be caused by the introduction of generative AI (and, it shall be even more difficult with more generalized AI in the future). Perhaps, somewhere, there exists an authoritative group that deals with serious interactions between technology and people — but, instead, we keep getting political and profit-based incursions into public decisions.

     We can do much, much, better — and we need to do such.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Does it Matter: If a positive meme that streams through the Internet "true"?

     As is true of most of us, I have too much data moving through my desk and life. I need to find some method to reduce but I am alway concerned that I may stop something that I needed to learn. For example, sometimes a little gem comes through. A story about someone doing something for, or with, some other person and group and I end up with tears rolling down my cheeks. Sometimes, I find it hard to breathe for a bit. Then, considering how much information comes into my world each day, I find that sneaky little question rising in my mind. Is it true?

     And today, in full force, I answered very loudly “DOES IT MATTER?”.

     This is only about positive anecdotal material that drifts around on the web.

     People have told stories since they were able to talk with one another. There have been people especially gifted (or, possibly, in a family line of historians/storytellers for the tribe) in the art of remembering and helping others to understand and remember. These stories — sometimes turned into myths — have helped us to create our cultures and our customs and traditions. They help to mold us into what we want to be — and what we want our children, and their children, and our children’s children’s children, …

     There has also always been the person who seems to gather up all the current news, good and bad, about the community and, possibly, other communities and feels that it is their duty to “share” this information with everyone they meet. It used to be around the public facilities, perhaps a community fire, where a small group gathered regularly. Then it became around other institutions — the backyard fence, the barbershop or styling salon, the water fountain. If the community was fortunate, the individual (shall we call them the “gossip”?) was not deliberately mean or likely to create false information. If not fortunate, the community was not as healthy as it might have been.

     Such face-to-face passing of information continues as a personal parallel to the role of the storyteller. But, in our “modern” age, the anonymous memes of the Internet have taken the role of gossip (or town crier) up a couple of quantum steps. Faster, more penetrating, quickly spread, anonymous (and very hard to attribute), and easily fabricated. We have only entered into the very scary, and hazardous, world of the easily fabricated deep fakes. I shudder.

     The role of these memes can supplant the role of gossip but they can also bear the burden of storyteller and archivist. These positive anecdotes, that build upon our desired values, can be of great benefit to both individuals and societies. We can all break down and cry with happiness, or support, or bereavement. They can help us to be our best selves. And it doesn’t matter if they really happened because they are like halloween costumes for the archetypes of our society.

     As briefly mentioned, with the light of angels there can also be the shadows of demons.

     Do we feed the good within us or the bad?

     It is up to us to decide what we want to allow to enter.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Helplessness: One approach to dealing with it is ...

 Band together.

     A person alone has so much to do to overcome the feelings of helplessness and to accomplish the desired goal. But two can mutually support. A group can have strength. A large group can make themselves heard. And a swelling of the masses can truly break out in song of “We Shall Overcome”.

     It seems to be a problem of swelling importance with so many issues facing us. A knowledge, and understanding, of history may be of some help with that. Does knowing that others have faced such issues fend off helplessness — or does it reinforce it knowing that the foundational issues have yet to find an enduring solution?

     I believe that there are people in the world who have never experienced feelings of helplessness. There are those who have abundant resources such that any situation can be dealt with before it becomes an actual problem that has a potential for feelings of helplessness. Someone who always has more than enough money doesn’t feel helpless upon being presented with debt or a bill — and their children may be raised such that they don’t even understand the concept. They may feel complete amazement that there is someone who does not have the resources to pay for a happy meal. It’s the (not an accurate historical quote) “let them eat cake” situation. And other problems can be delegated.

     There are people who are emotionally isolated from the world — psychopaths. They are fully focused on themselves and the concept of anything they cannot do is not possible.

     But, the vast majority of us do feel helpless about things at times. And the rich probably do have their own set of problems — I’m just not qualified to say what they might be.

     There is a seductive aspect to helplessness. “No one can blame me if I cannot do it, I am helpless”. It is certainly much easier to do nothing (though it may have both direct, and indirect, adverse effects). And there is a balancing point of any friends or acquaintances being supportive of you — or being enabling of your helplessness.

     The first step away from helplessness is to become aware of resources to allow progress away from problem areas. Helplessness and depression are often found together so being presented with a list of resources is not sufficient. The person feeling helpless must be able to recognize that they can proceed with finding the resources. And the potential for feelings of helplessness seems to increase each year, especially as more and more resources are concentrated into the control of so few.

     But it is possible. Becoming aware of resources (and escaping the vortex of depression) may need exterior pressure. Certainly, if not mandatory, knowing that others are willing to help you with (at the least) knowledge and information is of great help.

     There may be areas where it is not possible to reach your goal but feelings of helplessness are more associated with lack of hope, or potential, about getting to your goal rather than actually arriving at the goal.

     After becoming aware of resources, it is a matter of using those resources. Filling out forms, paying fines, taking courses, understanding the bureaucratic labyrinths. These are examples of resources and how they can be used. Sometimes they don’t work — sometimes due to corruption or ineptness. You find the appropriate bureaucratic approach and the other party doesn’t follow their own rules. It happens. But remember that overcoming helplessness is more of gathering the energy to make the attempt and not that of arriving at the goal.

     Togetherness enables hope.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Status Quo: Another Opiate for the Masses OR Why the Frog doesn't Jump

      “Don’t Rock the Boat”. “If it’s not (too badly) broke, don’t fix it”. “If we leave it alone, it will get better on its own”. As far as the last one goes, it comes true just often enough that we feel as if it might be reliable (it isn’t).

     The Status Quo is so very seductive. In the short term, it requires the least effort. And, especially in the United States, we have been encouraged to always think about the short term. In conjunction with “instant gratification” and “adjusted grade scales” and “adjusting to decreasing attention span” (rather than working to increase focus and attention span). Especially in the US, we have been encouraged (over the years) to rely more and more on the status quo and to feel like there is nothing we can really do. Don’t Rock The Boat.

     “Status quo” indicates a stasis — lack of change. But that is almost never possible. While we live, we are under constant change. Breathe in. Breathe out. Heart pumps in. Heart beats out. Food goes in. Other stuff comes out. If mobile, we are in one place then in another. It’s the same with society. “Status quo” is still a matter of constant change. BUT it can be a devolving system where, under some agreed upon set of values, the majority of things get worse — or (seems not sufficiently often) the majority of things get better. Keeping the status quo refers to the lack of initiative to attempt to keep the direction of change in motion.

     What’s wrong with expending the least effort? What is wrong with leaving the boat moving along as it floats along (even if it is heading in the wrong direction)? There is a quote from Bill Gates about “hire the laziest person and they will figure out the fastest, easiest way to do things”. But that saying does NOT exclude a requirement for doing well. There is nothing wrong (and many things right) to find the easiest, most efficient, resource conserving way to do things IF we are doing it for a “better” goal.

     Most of us who have gone through the school systems (I can only speak for the US but I suspect that it is in the textbooks of much of the world) have heard the story about the frog in the kettle of water. As long as they are initially in the water when it is cool, they will stay in it even as the water gets hotter and hotter — eventually cooking them. I have heard some things recently that say the story is anecdotal and not based on real experiments. But, accurate or not, the idea still applies. People are used to allowing things to slowly get worse. Don’t Rock The Boat.

     The U.S., and the world, are showing the long term evidence of looking towards the short term rather than the long term. The ocean is getting warmer and warmer acting as a heat sink for energy storage. That stored energy can allow events to be much more energetic — which is the common aspect disguised within an outer envelope. More energy, stronger storms. More energy, colder cold fronts. More energy, warmer warm fronts. More energy, more frequent and severe floods. More energy, more frequent and severe droughts.

     But we don’t have to look at the biggest picture (the world) to recognize the trends towards short-term versus long-term thinking.

     Over the past 70 years, the U.S. has gone from walking on the moon to a 21% illiteracy rate and 54% of the population having a reading level below what is considered appropriate for sixth graders. Don’t Rock the Boat.

     Over the past 40 years, the CEOs of corporations have increased the ratio of their pay to that on the average production worker:

     This data comes from the Wikipedia article. Alas, although there was a dip around 2007, the did not continue and today is worse than ever. In 2025, the AVERAGE rario is CEO pay 268 times that of the average worker. The worst ratio this year is TWO THOUSAND and ONE times that of the average worker. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. One gets even greater excess and the other struggles harder. Don’t Rock the Boat.

     So what if those CEOs make so very much more pay than the people who actually create the products and generate the income and profits? Don’t they “deserve” it? They certainly do “legally”. But it is legal only because we elect millionaires and billionaires who create tax systems and loopholes and other items which benefit the millionaires and billionaires. We don’t have to do such. Don’t Rock the Boat.

     In 1975, the minimum wage was $2.10 which was the equivalent of $12.77/hour in 2025 dollars. In 2009, the last year the US Federal minimum wage was increased, the minimum wage was/is $7.25 — which is the equivalent of $10.88 today. Yes, that’s right, the “increased” minimum wage DECREASED in effective money the last time it was raised. And minimum wage has not been a living wage for many years. Hard work (if a job can be found) no longer means being able to have a place to live or the ability to save towards dreams. Don’t Rock the Boat.

     In 1975, minimum wage wasn’t an easy wage. But a person could rent an apartment. A person could put away something for savings towards a house or going to college. Hard work meant hope. A $42,525 house (average house in 1975) in 1975 would cost $258,595.43 today EXCEPT that the average house price in 2025 is $462,20. Yes, house prices (and house sizes) have risen much faster than wages. According to a page on college tuition inflation, college prices have gone up an average of 6% a year — leading to a current cost of three times (adjusted for inflation) that of what was needed in 1977 (the figures didn’t start at 1975). So, less money and greatly increased prices for housing and higher education. Don’t Rock the Boat.

I     n the 1950-1955 era, the US had the 13th highest life expectancy. In 2010-2015, the US had the 43rd highest life expectancy. The US health system is weighed down by the inefficiencies of the pharmaceutical/health insurance systems (which pay quite good dividends and appreciation to stockholders — and even better contributions to the campaigns of legislators). Don’t Rock the Boat.

     As this newsletter started, a status quo rarely is stagnant. Things change slowly or quickly. In the US, we have a group of legislators continuously pushing the balance over towards the already too-rich and away from the not-enough-to-live. And the other group of legislators is scared to push back, so “keeping the status quo” means capitulating and letting the other group push into greater and greater imbalance, and greater and greater debts, which leads to all of the lowering standards mentioned above. It’s not too surprising that anger and frustration builds up. Just a bit surprising, and very sad, that the originators of the worsening situation succeed in getting voters to support them even more.

Don’t Rock the Boat.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Forgiveness: A Gift to Myself

     Many people (not you, of course) think that forgiveness is about the other person. Someone has done, or said, something that you consider offensive or bad — and you are supposed to want to forgive them. Stepping back from this imagined situation, why would they WANT you to forgive them? They might believe that they didn’t do anything offensive or bad. They might not care that they did something offensive or bad. If they are aware, and do care, then they are very likely to be apologizing to you.

     Let us assume that they have apologized to you. They are either acknowledging that they have not behaved their best or they feel there is a social need to make an apology to you. In this case, forgiveness is an acknowledgement, on your part, that they have made an apology. An appropriate response would be “I accept your apology” or, of course, “I do not accept your apology”. In this second case, if they are listening to you then their next step might either be indignation (they have done all that they can, or are willing to, do) or a request for clarification as to what more you need to hear or to be done. And so on.

     But, what are the consequences of your NOT forgiving the other (whether or not they have offered an apology)? The stated, or unstated, hope is that by withholding your forgiveness their life will continue under a shadow recognizing that they have done something bad in their life. Is that realistic?

     Who among us has never done something that was not as good as we would have preferred? Certainly not I. There are a handful of scenarios within my life history that I would change if I could. (And I am positive that there are other events I have done badly of which I am NOT aware.) And they HAVE affected my life because of their continued presence in my memory. They exist as a prick to my conscience to endeavor to do better in the future. That awareness of the past helps me to determine the standards that I require myself to meet. If I could place back into those places, perhaps I would have made an apology.

     But life moves on. I go on to make new mistakes. I recognize that I will never achieve the goal of perfection (though, as a Quaker, it is still a self-flagellation that occurs). I do not, I cannot, allow myself to remain stuck within my past. I must live and grow.

     Back to the qualities, and objectives, of forgiveness. Forgiveness as an acknowledgement may help both move on easier. But forgiveness as an acceptance may be even more important. We are not responsible to “make” them move on their journey. But acceptance can allow the “forgiver” to more easily move along. The “chains” we enact between ourselves and the past can be broken.

     Forgiveness unchains us to allow us to move forward.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.