Criminality: Just a Law Away

     Everyone knows what a criminal is, don’t they? They’re the ones that rob or break things or get into fights. All of those things can happen, and they may be a criminal because of those actions — but it’s really not the root of the situation.

    A criminal is someone who has broken a law.

    The law might be a good law. The law might be a bad law. It might be an old law … or a brand new law. It may be a law that is only occasionally, and haphazardly, enforced. In each case, it is still a law, and breaking it makes you a criminal. For example, in the following weird laws, if you

• Put salt on a railroad track (Alabama)

• Refuse to give a person a glass of water (Arizona) [in Florida, it is illegal TO give people food or water]

• Fish from a camel’s back (Idaho)

• Take a bath between the months of October and March (Indiana)

• Don’t shower at least once a year (Kentucky)

• Keep an armadillo as a pet (Maine)

• Serenade your girlfriend (Michigan)

• Ride a camel on the highway (Nevada)

• Wear roller skates in a bathroom (Oregon)

• Wash a mule on the sidewalk (Virginia)

then you have broken the law (and, sometimes, with potentially very serious penalties).

     These don’t sound so serious, do they. And it is true that they are rarely enforced. But, these laws were written — and written for a purpose. The purpose may have been against the actions of one person. That is scary. Someone in authority can make you a criminal by enacting a law forbidding you to do something that you normally do. They don’t even have to inform you of the enacting of the law (“ignorance of the law is no excuse”).

     We don’t lose much sleep over weird laws and most people are happy about the “good” laws. It doesn’t make much difference as to whether it is an old law or a new law as long as it is a “good” law. Alas, laws aren’t always good.

     The use of laws to make people criminals is widespread throughout the world and there are a number of such laws in the U.S.’s relatively recent history.

     One very, very serious instance of laws written deliberately to allow the creation of a group of criminals derives from the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

     This Amendment is very important. It made it illegal to have slaves in the United States. In terms of this newsletter, however, it is the “escape clause” that is of great concern. “except as a punishment for crime”. Slavery and/or involuntary servitude is legal if a person is convicted of a crime. And crimes are described as breaking laws. (Fortunately, the full evils of U.S. slavery do not apply — the children do not become slaves.)

     In many areas of the South, “chain gangs” (almost always “minorities” (called such even where they are the majority of the population)) of people are assigned to do the same tasks as were done by slaves. They can even be hired out to individuals or businesses to do their menial work, as was done by slaves. (Unlike slavery, however, such does not extend to ownership of their children and family members.) All that is needed is to enact a law, or laws, that apply largely to the targeted group (and not enforce the law for others not in the targeted group) and the Thirteenth Amendment is legally nullified to a great extent.

     My father served in the US Navy, on an aircraft carrier, during the Korean War (or, officially, the Korean Conflict since no war has been declared by Congress since 1942). He mentioned to me the casual use of the completely legal substance, marijuana, as a normal part of ship life during that time. But, in the 1970s, it was no longer widely used. Therefore, J Edgar Hoover, who was passionately racist, decided that it was appropriate to encourage the use of marijuana within areas of targeted groups AND to persuade Congress and the President to make use of marijuana illegal. Thus, J Edgar Hoover could legally facilitate the subjection, and harassment, of his hated prey.

     In all areas of the world, we would like it to be true that laws are always enacted for the safety, and betterment, of people and society. But a law can be a potent weapon and recognition of that is important for people to be aware.

     A person may be changed from a non-criminal to a criminal by the enactment of a law. So, every law is of importance and it is the responsibility of every citizen to keep legislators carefully monitored.

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

Apathy: The Longest Addiction

     Once upon a time, in a galaxy very close to us all, I gave a Salutatorian speech for my high school (50th graduation anniversary this year). The topic was “Apathy”. The best that I can say about it was that I didn’t spot anyone sleeping during the speech. The worst that I can say is that I could give the exact same speech today, with the same reactions, and the same results.

     Between many moves and changes of technology (my speech was recorded on a cassette tape), I don’t seem to have the text of my speech anymore. But, as I said, I could give the same speech — or write the same speech — today without much change. The one addition I would make would be an advisory that apathy includes not taking the time or energy to research and factcheck the information with which you are presented. I don’t believe that the word factcheck existed in 1975.

     Apathy and procrastination are similar. Both are delays but procrastination is expected to have an end. Also, apathy is supposed to be based out of lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern. Procrastination says that you kind-of want to do it but not now, after something, or when there are two moons in the sky.

     Recentering on apathy. Why would a person lack interest/enthusiasm/concern in something? It might not be important. It might not be important to them. The second is more likely since, if no one felt it was important, apathy would not even be considered to be applied as a description. Once again, apathy is likely to be used only if they “should” care. Everyone should care about climate change, right? Women should control their own bodies, right? Everyone’s life is important, right?

    Let’s proceed as if there is some issue about which people should care — some issue that affects them or those they care about. Why don’t they have any interest/enthusiasm/concern?

• It’s not their problem. Possibly not — at the moment — but many problems tend to grow over time. Social injustices, for example, have a tendency to keep expanding to include more and more subgroups of people. Pollution in one area tends to encourage corporations to feel it is okay to pollute anywhere and it may start affecting you. Air pollution will depend on the direction of the wind. If you recognize that it is A problem, then deciding that it is irrelevant to you is not a good excuse.
  

• Their efforts won’t make a difference. So, now you’re all-knowing (omniscient)? You never know. By being brave and confronting injustice, and supporting someone, you might be preventing a murder or a suicide. You just don’t know the effects of your own efforts. And the multiplier effect can change things considerably. Sociologists talk about how small percentages (sometimes as low as 3 or 4%) can become “contagious” and change the behavior of the larger group. You really, truly, never know if your personal effort will make a difference. And you can be pretty sure that your effort, in combination with others’ similar effort, CAN bring about change.
  

• They have other things in my life that are more important. This is hard to argue against. We all have many things we need to do that are important to ourselves, or those we care about. But, it may be a matter of just examining our priorities a bit closer. Will watching five more minutes of anime be more important, in your life, than placing a call to your legislator to ask them to do the right thing? (Legislators primarily pay attention to contributors but some also pay attention to the interests of those they are supposed to represent.) Will it change your ability to live out your day if you pick up a stray piece of litter as you are walking along the street — how much time did that really take?
  

• They have personal issues that manifest in decreased energy and activity levels. Depression, burnout, addictions, diseases, medications, and other items of life can make everything “else” seem not worth doing. Yes, you need to take care of yourself before you can attend to the needs of others. However, it is not a cliché to say that helping others can lead to helping yourself. Twelve-step programs often incorporate reaching outward to make your inward self more supportable. All I can truly say in this area is that you can only do what you can do. Blessed be.
  

• They are opposed to the item. You hate being around those who have challenges in their lives and would prefer them to just “go away” rather than try to do something for them. You hate that other state and are glad that their citizens are getting cancer from corporate pollution. That “other” group should be treated badly because they aren’t as valuable as others. In such situations, you aren’t actually expressing apathy — though it could appear that way to outside observers. This is an expression of a wounded soul and I can only pray that you heal from your ills.

     Apathy is looked at from the outside as a lack of action. The causes of apathy can be manifold but it is as true today as it was true 50 years ago that we could really “change the world” if we can treat this societal illness.

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

Recalibration: it is rarely a matter of comparing apples to apples

     My wife and I belong to a book club (she belongs to several, but we go to one together). A couple of books ago, we read the book “Happiness Falls” by Angie Kim. Not particularly giving a spoiler, the title is involved with something called a “happiness quotient”. The idea is that your recent past history will reset your scales.

     Say that I attended a pretty good happy film. As a 1 to 10 life experience (as opposed to a rating of the film itself), I rate it a 6 — pleasant and better than average. Now, envisage having just lost your job. You attend the same film but since you are likely feeling pretty rotten, watching that pretty good happy film might win a 8 for you as it was “just what you needed” at that time. Or your down feelings might negatively affect your appreciation of the film and you might get only a 4 for the experience of going to the film. In either case, you have altered your scale for evaluation.

     The range may also depend on the local environment. In a town where there are few restaurants and little competition, it is likely that a restaurant might get a 4/5. In a different area, with more restaurants and competition, it might get a 3/5. Same restaurant, same quality but looked at (and rated) differently according to the competitive environment.

     Let’s proceed towards the topic of “Happiness Falls” as mentioned above. If I have had a series of mishaps, or tragedies, occurring in my life, a well-prepared birthday party may seem like an 8/10 whereas if I just received the Nobel prize, I might consider it only a 6/10.

     I have a high pain threshold (which isn’t always to my advantage). I used to have my teeth filled without anesthesia. My current dentist doesn’t give me that option. But I know of some others who have to have general anesthetic before any dental work can be done. Our scales of 1 to 10 for pain are quite different.

     This is one of the many reasons why we cannot truly “walk in another’s footsteps”. Not that efforts to understand are not worthwhile — they are. But your feelings of pain, alienation, love, hate, and every other physical and emotional feeling are very unlikely to be at the same level as that of the other person. Your scales do not have the same endpoints.

     What evaluation scales do you have that seem to be out-of-sync with that of others?

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

Amorality: For those who don't care whether something is "good" or "bad" -- only how it affects themselves

     I have boycotted a certain international company, famous for its chocolate and milk products, for over 50 years. Does that company care? Not at all. They have long ago adjusted their market prognosis to allow for those of us who boycott it. If my boycotting them makes no difference then why do I continue? Because the only reason I would be stopping is because of the inconvenience of continuing the boycott. My inconvenience versus an implicit acceptance of their behavior — that is not a sufficient reason to stop boycotting them. They also have purchased a certain baby food brand. IF I still had small children that might be a reason to stop my boycott. The nutrition of my child versus an implicit acceptance of behavior. A hard call and I’m glad I don’t have to make it.

     This company is not the only such company, of course. In the early 1970s, a well-known international automobile maker found themselves without a model to compete against the new small fuel-efficient cars. So, they rushed to complete a design. It turns out that, for other design considerations, they put the gasoline tank right at the back of the car. Cars were exploding when they were hit from behind. But, it took quite a few months before enough news (back when mainstream journalism was still a legitimate thing) reports triggered a backlash against the car manufacturer and they removed the model from the market.

     Even now, we have international companies which have vestiges of their prior journalism departments. But if they dare to report the reality of abusive governmental people and bodies, they retract and pay fines rather than face the possibility of abuse of power and retribution. The actions MAY be in the best interests of their stock holders (probably not as they are also potential customers) but definitely not in the best interests of their customers.

     What do these situations (and many others not described) have in common? Amorality.

     This is a subject about which I have written a number of newsletters (or blogs) in the past. But, in our world of diminishing trust in the world around us, it continues to be a very important subject. For some, there is no distinction between amorality and immorality and perhaps they are correct. Immorality is doing something that you know is considered bad according to your societal standards. Amorality is allowing something bad to happen (possibly without understanding that it is bad but not caring) but not directly doing the bad thing. There is a gray area which asks if knowing about the action makes a person an accomplice.

     In the above examples, the corporate decisions and actions are largely to do with money. If they could make the money without having the immoral actions occurring, that would be fine with them. But the money is more important. For the chocolate company, they add up the profits they make inappropriately selling their product. They balance that number against the cost of lawsuits for deaths, court costs, and restitution. So far, they make more money selling products and killing people. A similar situation existed for the automobile company. For the media company, none are killed directly but may be killed in related actions.

     Similar situations exist for personal actions. Bullying someone is immoral. Knowing about the bullying and not doing anything is amoral (see what I mean about the gray area between immoral and amoral). Polluting the environment is immoral. Noticing the pollution and not doing anything about it is amoral. Deliberately harming, or killing, someone is immoral (and usually illegal) but recognizing the event and not doing anything about it is amoral. There are some situations in which it seems that there is nothing an individual can do anything to prevent it. But, there really is no excuse.

     Amorality also exists when the company, or person, is unconcerned about GOOD effects of their actions. A company changes their waste flow to capture, and resell, some of the effluent which ends up with the company polluting less. Their action was to make more money via a better process and profitable side-effect but the end result was something good. People don’t complain about that (and I don’t either — I wish it would happen more often).

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

Giving & Taking: One cannot exist without the other but there are nuances

      “It is better to give than to receive”. English, even more than many other languages, has shades of meaning according to the exact word used. The word “receive” is passive. Something arrives and you passively receive it. There is no action upon the receiver’s part except to act as a receptacle.

“I received a package in the mail”.

     In the first paragraph, “giving” is an active verb. You are deliberately choosing to remove something in your possession and place it into the possession of someone else or in some other place. You are using an active “give” and a passive “receive”. It is also possible to be an unwilling, passive, person/location that has something available to be used/possessed by someone else or another place. In this case, it is best to use the passive verb “possess”. Possessor A transfers X to possessor B.

“They took what they wanted”.

     “Don’t be a taker”. In this case, “take” is very active. You are removing something from someone, or some place, and taking possession of it. Whether it wants to be possessed by you is of no consequence. Only in the case of an active giver is everything voluntary.

     Confused yet? People get confused and they use the wrong terms all the time. We say that being a taker is bad and a giver is good. But it really depends on the other end of the transition.

• If both are passive, no transaction occurs.

• If one is active and the other passive then the transaction may be unwilling and, most of the time, the morality of a society says that an unwilling transaction is bad. (There are those, of course, that say “might makes right” — if you CAN take then it is all right for you to take. In general, people will SAY that forcing something upon (“giving to”) a person is not proper but may accept the act. If you CAN give but the other doesn’t want it then it indicates a certain amount of hubris.)

• If both are active, it is assumed that it is a willing transaction.

     The above is complicated enough, isn’t it? But we haven’t gone into the situation of an active end and an active refusal. I try to give you something (active) but you refuse to accept it (active refusal). I try to take something from you (active) and you refuse to let it go (active refusal). These situations are conflict cases — conflict of desire — and they are often the basis of wars, vendettas, grudges, and resentments.

     There are more exact replacements, or synonyms of the various verbs within a given situation.

     Taking from someone without their permission (active or passive resistance) is theft.

     Giving to someone without their desire to have it can be called charity or it can be called hubris.

     Adages must be applied carefully. Sometimes it is NOT better to give than to receive.

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

Spectrums: Deciding upon a number along a long list of numbers does not define us.

     It is very rare that a person can use one particular set of pigeonholes to categorize a person — probably isn’t possible at all. But most measuring devices will come up with “answers”. Looking at those answers more closely, we find that the answers all end up “kind of”.

     I have a result for the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory of INT/FJ. The “/” indicates that I “balance” between the aspects of “Thinking” and “Feeling”. The reality is that the T to F scale is a spectrum. I test out at the very middle. It is my understanding that there is now a refinement that breaks the type-casting into smaller gradations. It also seems to be true that we shift based on relationships. My wife is strong on the Process-oriented side of the MBTI while I am moderate on the Judicious side. When I am with her, my "J” aspect becomes stronger as I counter-balance her “P” tendencies.

     There are many areas that can be measured — with an arbitrary division that says one endpoint or the other (for weight; overweight versus underweight). Some are known to have large “loopholes” but are used anyway for convenience. One such is BMI. For most people (about 90%), this ratio of height to weight works — but for those who have either a lot of muscle mass (such as athletes or other heavy exercisers) or truly “large boned” it does not work well. The measurement of height seems straight-forward but we are all shorter at the end of the day (the older, the greater the difference) and whether we are “short” or “tall” depends within what pool of people we are measured. When I was visiting castles in Wales, I (at 5’ 7” tall) had to duck under every door arch and watch my head within rooms. The suits of armor appeared to be made for junior high school children.

     One of the areas that end up being categorized the most is “race”. Most people would think that this would be definitive but it is actually composed of many gradations and very arbitrary divisions. The concept of race was created to give apparently rational excuses for distinguishing between different pools of people. Thus, one pool could be considered “superior” to others and justified colonialism and slavery. But, if you break down the qualities that are measured, we can quickly see that such classification is balderdash.

     At our sons’ elementary school, there were a variety of genetic backgrounds. I believe there were about 800 students. If, on a particular day (it would be different on another day because of tanning or season of the year), you lined all 800 students up from the most pigment to the least, you would probably have around 50 or so clumps where the pigment level would be difficult to discern between individuals. According to the “race” aspect, however, somewhere between two clumps, the children would be classified as “white” or “non-white”.

     The same set of methods could be applied to hair texture, nose proportions, eye color, cuticle shapes, and so forth. With each spread and grouping, the concept of “race” becomes more and more ludicrous.

     This is not meant to negate personal histories, ethnic commonalities, and other aspects which can tend to group people and may coincide with the categories of “race”. Such identification may be very important to a person, their history, and their perspectives on the rest of the world — but the outside envelope is incidental.

     We have four sons, two of which are on the Autistic spectrum. Before a change in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), they were considered to have Asperger’s Syndrome. Autism is not a disease but it is a change in brain structure that creates challenges for people to deal with inside a “neurotypical” (or “normal”) population. The changes happen before birth and, therefore, nothing that happens after birth has any relevance.

     From a “techie” point of view, you can say that their I/O (Input/Output) connections to the world are wired differently. With this difference in “wiring”, interactions with the outside world do not work the same as others. Hearing, speaking, touching, tasting, seeing, smelling and other bodily interactions with the general population can sometimes be like speaking different languages.

     But our two sons are considered “high functioning”. They have strong verbal skills and are able to do most things that others do. But they do them differently — and one of them includes an aspect of “sensory issues” where the volume of the outside world can vary, in his perception, from moment to moment. As a child, this caused him great distress so he would scream to drown out the outside world with something “he could control”. It continues to affect him about what foods he can tolerate.

     The grandson of a friend is towards the other “end” of the spectrum. His “I/O circuitry” does not allow verbal output. He is not fully at the “end” (where there is NO interaction with the outside world) as he is still able to interact with others and can be an enormous pleasure to be around. It is impossible for those around him to know just what/how/how much/why he processes information.

     Our society has a terrible habit of assuming that those with sensory challenges also have intellectual challenges but such aspects are quite independent. From all points within the autistic spectrum, the goal is have them be able to interact well with others who do not have their particular configurations.

     Another famous spectrum issue is that of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ). It has been proposed that IQ is only one of a number of different types of intelligence with all of them having their own “score” or place upon the spectrum. Often a “100” means “average”. Half of the population is meant to be below 100 and the other half above 100. But there are also scales (or spectrums) for emotional intelligence (EQ) and physical intelligence (PQ) and a couple of others. Alas, there is no such thing as a “common sense” quotient — because that term is primarily used as a comparison between those setting the ideal and those either following along or diverting from that ideal.

     Score, scale, spectrum — we are all of more this way than that and the combination of all such comparisons, or evaluations. The array of results, as expressed in lists of numbers, emphasize how unique we each are rather than allowing a single number to pigeonhole us.

     We are one species, one people and our differences all form a part of the population as a whole.

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

Displacement: Physical and Economic

     Life is change. It can be slow, fast, or abrupt — but it happens. Our planet has gone through changes throughout its history. Asteroids have hit the planet. Volcanoes have caused short-lived, but deadly, global winters for the planet. We have had Ice Ages and receding periods. Continents have split apart and merged.

     We are currently in a global warming period emerging faster than has happened in any other recorded period. This is based on comparisons with historical geologic and ice core readings. It is due to increases of greenhouse gases which prevent heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere and which causes a change in the balance of energy. The oceans are warming and that gives a greater heat/energy source for creation of larger, more frequent, drastic weather events such as droughts, floods, storms, hurricanes and — yes — even blizzards. Almost all scientists agree that humans have greatly contributed to those greenhouse gases. It is not as certain as to whether it still would have happened without humans — but, if so, not nearly as quickly.

     But it IS happening and it’s happening quickly. The changes in weather patterns are forcing changes in crops grown in different areas. The rise in sea level threatens coastlines and many island nations, with much of their area to be below estimated future sea levels, are making plans for migration (or emigration) of much of their population. Larger, non-island, countries will have to deal with coastlines receding inland with established coastal development going under the water. Other large-scale displacements of people will happen because of changes in availability in amounts of potable water. More energy in the system can power many different events and 100-year-floods become 5-year-floods.

     People are not displaced solely because of physical reasons. The tides of change in the economic arena can move people even more than an earthquake.

     The name “Luddite” (named for Ned Ludd who destroyed some mechanical equipment in 1779 out of frustration with changes happening) can be found in literature around 1811. In this region of time, the “Industrial Revolution” was taking place. What once needed ten people to do the manual labor for a task could, with machines, be done with one person (trained differently and with a different set of daily duties). What happened to the other nine? They were unemployed — and, since there were a lot of instances of this happening in the textile industry, there were a LOT of unemployed people without any type of modern “safety net”. They had been displaced by the new technology and machinery.

     Many of the newly unemployed workers had done the same type of work all of their lives. The companies that they previously worked for had no legal obligation for generosity and compassion to help the unemployed workers — nor did the religious leaders of the time urge such!

     Over the years, technology has replaced technology. As Danny DeVito says in “Other People’s Money” (not the exact words) — “I’ll bet that the last company that made buggy whips made the absolutely most wonderful buggy whips ever”. But the buggy and coach have traveled over the hills unlikely to return.

     Over the past 50 years, we have had white-collar labor practices be replaced by programs and computers — and blue-collar positions replaced by automation. It has caused discomfort and displacement but manageable. Now, the process continues to accelerate. Though we have yet to see just how effective, and useful, current AI methods are within society, if they come even close to the use as hoped for by businesses, we could displace 10% to 20% of the labor force. These are not people who have yet to find a job. These are people for whom no job exists. What happens with them? Desperate people do desperate things. A universal base income might keep them alive but there are so many other societal aspects that blend into that and other possibilities.

     While this is something that I have said, and will say, on a disgustingly regular basis; we have problems to approach and work towards solving — but the first overriding problem is getting people to talk to, and work with, each other to work to solve them.

     But we can do it if we want to do such.

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

Strata: Layers don't apply only to geology

 “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”

― Lyndon B. Johnson

     Geologists and physical archeologists can look at a cliffside and determine weather patterns, and events of the earth, that tell us some about the history of the earth — including volcanic events, earthquakes, global plates colliding, and so forth. In the case of geology, it is a matter of one new layer being settled upon an older, former, one. The layers are not all active at the same time — unlike layers of human society.

     There have probably been pockets of egalitarianism throughout history and society. The book “Utopia” by Thomas More gives some glimpses into an angelic society such as that; but utopia is an idealized societal structure that can only be approached as a possible goal; a goal that is hardly ever reached — and never maintained.

     General society has hierarchies which can be formalized or implied. In Russian feudal society, the layers were fixed: Royalty, Nobility, Peasants, and Serfs. There was almost no mobility between layers and there were less structured sublayers within each layer. The bottom layer was pretty universal within all feudal societies — the Serfs were property and anyone above them in the hierarchy could do anything to them that they wanted. The top layer was also pretty universal. Royalty owned everything but Nobles might be delegated to be directly responsible for some subset. Peasants (in other named hierarchies, sometimes known as Freemen (yes — gender on purpose)) were no longer considered to be property but terms of mutual obligation with the local royalty/nobility were dictated solely by the higher class.

     Feudal society was common throughout Europe from the 9th through the 15th centuries. It was structured somewhat differently in each region, but still had the ruling classes on top and the working classes (and human property) on the bottom.

     I don’t have enough knowledge about non-European systems to talk in depth about them — but most have in common the idea of a smaller group controlling a larger group that did the everyday work. The primary improvement over the feudal system past the 15th century was the concept of movement, and the creation of what many now call the “middle class”. Prior to these changes, if you were born a serf, you died a serf, and so did your children. Sure, there were tales (often totally made up) that talked about “diamonds in the rough” where a serf became the king — but there aren’t many (if any) recorded instances of this actually happening.

     With increased mobility, a person could move up (or, more rarely, down — if a royal, or noble, lost status they often lost their life) in the social strata. Advancing to the rung of royalty has been strongly opposed by others in the ruling class but in the 20th and 21st century such has happened.

     In almost every economic society, there are people in the bottom layer who do most of the physical work, almost all of the “unpleasant” physical work, and who have very little security in their lives. In India, the Dalits (“untouchables”) are at the bottom. In the U.S., it is minorities, recent immigrants (that did not come in under a H1-B Visa or other high tech Visa), and undocumented immigrants. In Australia, South Asian immigrants bring along their positions within their own caste system and the position of the aborigine is unclear. In much of modern Europe, there is a less strict boundary but those considered as “laborers” still make up the foundation, “lower”, class/layer.

     In the U.S., the layers do shift — as does the population mixture. “No Irish Need Apply”, “Italians go Home”, “Whites Only” (that last one still exists — just not so explicitly), Large influxes of outside groups as immigrants often evoke discomfort, insecurity, and discrimination. And, of course, slaves were the lowest sublayer within the foundation layer prior to official elimination of slavery — though blacks are still often part of the foundation layer.

     In diagrams of caste, or economic/social, systems the layers are often displayed as pyramids. This evolves naturally, as each layer “up” has fewer people and has more freedom of action and allowable actions. In the North American indigenous totem poles, it is the bottom layer that is the foundation of the story and the source of strength and support for the other layers — often representing spirit guardians or an animal protector for the group.

     It isn’t required that the bottom layer be populated by people. We are now entering a period of time when it is no longer a fantasy to have robots, or multi-functioning AI or automation, take over many of the tasks of the foundation layer. Doing such forces a shift of the people filling the existing foundation layers and makes intrusions into other layers. Presently, there are no societies properly preparing for such a disruption.

     The bottom layers of society are vital to local economic/societal functioning. Like the foundation of a house, they are more important to the structure than that which is built on top.

     Without them, the rest of the layers crumble.

     But the treatment of the people comprising the bottom layers is not predetermined. They can be treated horribly, as was most often the case with the enslaved population of the U.S., the situation of the Dalits in India, or the recent immigrant (legal or undocumented). They can also be recognized and respected. Alas, the spectrum of treatment more often leans toward poor treatment. But, since all layers serve a purpose, a more egalitarian treatment is warranted and quite possible to exist within a society.

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

Woke: The hijacking of a Word

     If I read (or hear) the word “woke” in an article, I immediately know (with a high degree of confidence) what the political, economic, and societal orientation of the person using the word is. Why? Because those that originally made use of the word have almost completely abandoned it. The word has been hijacked from the originators to be used in very different ways.

     The word “woke” has a very simple definition:

To be aware of historical events and attitudes and their continued influence within society.

     There are other variations of the definition but it seems pretty straight-forward, doesn’t it? Simple. Should not be particularly controversial. But, as used by those who still use it, it is.

     Do the people who use it as negative type of 4-letter word still use it with the original definition? I don’t know. It is possible — though, if true, it means that they strongly different in opinion (and deny the facts of primary source documentation) about how historians and sociologists view the past, and present, world.

     If they use it with a different meaning, I cannot say just what that meaning may be. As used within speeches, articles, social media posts, tweets, and political campaigns it has no single consistent definition. It is used as an all-encompassing flag word to stand for everything negative that they believe exists in the people for whom they are using the word.

     The word “woke” is not the only word that has been hijacked in such a manner. And this has greatly assisted the campaign to divide the country and prevent constructive discussion. There is a saying that is used to work out the foundational reasons for events — “follow the money”. In these expanding situations of forcing division where there should be none, the better slogan should be “follow the power”.

     Hijacking a word does not benefit anyone. It just makes constructive dialog harder.

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

Terrorism: At the bottom of a spiral of grief, frustration, and rage

     I am not an expert in terrorism and I hate it as much as anyone. But, I do have some qualifications in feeling anger, frustration, and grief.

     I firmly believe that no one wants to be a terrorist. There is no career counseling in an office where someone says — “oh yes, that sounds just right for me. I think it would be really great to be a terrorist.” And, on the other side, I doubt very much that a lot of groups, and people, whom most of the world calls a terrorist would, in turn, call themselves a terrorist.

     Terrorists are not born, they are created. We all know that life is not fair but do we all have a good idea of just what that means? My brother gets a piece of candy and my mother looks for another but there is no more so I don’t get one. Life is not fair. Anger level 1.

     I apply to a college and am qualified to attend but I am turned down because they have no more open places to fill or no more funding to offer. But someone else does get admitted. They are also qualified but they are put into the front of the qualified queue because one of their parents is an alumnus of the college. Or perhaps the other person is the first in their family to have qualified to enter college and the college places them farther towards the front of the qualified queue. Life is not fair. Anger level 3.

     I have been working for a company for 15 years. I know how to do the work in my sleep (though I do not sleep while working). A position opens up. I am extremely well qualified to fill the position but the company gives the position to someone with no experience but they have a piece of paper that says they know the most recent ways to do the tasks of the position. Life is not fair. Anger level 5.

     My family works hard together to make a life for all. There are no luxuries but everyone gets enough to eat, the clothes are clean and the family is even able to buy shoes (inexpensive or second-hand) when the children outgrow them. A bomb hits my house. My parents and one of my siblings are killed. Our home is obliterated. I have to go on the streets with my little sister and try to scrounge food and locate some shelter in abandoned buildings. I am sometimes beaten by others who are homeless but, more often, I am beaten by people who still have a safe, stable, home life. Perhaps because, deep down, they know that they could easily be in the same position as the homeless boy? Life is not fair. Anger level 6.

     But, as I walk around — avoiding the police who do not want me disturbing people — I see how others are dressed. I see people on television shows whose greatest concern is whether to fry a chicken or have fish for dinner. Life is not fair. Anger level 8.

     Many people who hit these situations give up — and spiral into despair and frustration. Some find it within themselves to struggle to examine what aspects of their situation are able to be changed and succeed in improving their situation. And some settle into non-constructive morasses of blame, bigotry, and complaining.

     But what if there is no way to improve the situation — the laws are against you and people like you? Unlike what happens with Job, there is no one who can restore your family (and, in the Bible, Job gets a new family — not the old one back). No one can restore your house and your neighborhood. It is possible that as soon as you and/or your neighbors rebuild, the new houses are bombed. Anger level 9.

     This becomes a combination of anger about the events and frustration in not being able to change the past, present, or future. There is yet additional anger if there is no one with some degree of power willing to listen. And if you are being used as an “expendable” side-effect of political and military maneuvering then anger and frustration mount.

     These combinations of great anger and huge frustration generate rage. And rage is not rational. It does not stand back and say “how do these actions cause an improvement in my condition or the condition of my neighbors and others in my same situation?” It explodes — sometimes (too often) literally.

     In addition, those who have entered into a state of rage are very susceptible to being used. People with greater power and charisma can easily channel people’s rage into destructive action for their own purposes.

     It is possible for the death-dance of rage and frustration to de-escalate. It happened in Northern Ireland. It was not easy. It can also be contagious. It is currently expanding within the Middle East and it is very difficult to know who deserves the title of terrorist. Possibly none of them believe that the word should be associated with them. Yet rage rules the situation.

     Terrorists are not born, they are created. It will take the concerted, compassionate, efforts of all of us to change those conditions within which they are created.

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

Success: We don't all have the same definition

     Everyone wants success, don’t they? But that doesn’t mean that I want what YOU mean by success. And it doesn’t mean that you want what I mean as success. This often seems to be a stumbling block in communication — the same word (or set of phonemes — or hand gestures) not meaning the same thing to each of the people conversing. This is especially so when it comes to the word “success”.

     I am in the process of learning Spanish (read/write coming along well, listen/speak not so well) and a recently introduced word is “exito” which the language program I am using (DuoLingo) defines in English as success. I checked the word history of exito and it has come from the Latin word “exitus”. And exitus has its own set of meanings — the most relevant in this case being that of termination or conclusion (also “way out” [of a place]). So we can see some linguistic connections between “exito”, “success”, “exitus, and “exit””. It also gives us a different way of approaching how the word success may really be meant to be used.

     Many people use “success” to mean a positive conclusion — which does partially fit in with the history and definition of the word (the definition does not include “positive” — thus, success could also be applied to a negative conclusion if taken only from word history.).

     In the “western” world, there are a few accepted variants associations which can be applied to success (and are often used as adjectives before the word). Wealth, fame, recognition (similar, but not identical, to fame), achievement, production, number of friends, respect, and so forth. The predominant interpretation in the western world is accumulation of wealth — though wealth is often assumed (but not necessarily true) for those who have achieved status through accomplishments or recognition.

     As a parent, I have a personal definition of success which is above all other definitions. I want my children to be able to successfully “leave the nest”. This is just a different set of words to the concept of having the next generation ready to take over from the current generation. Note that I am not talking about THEIR success — they are the only ones that can define that. I am talking about OUR success as parents. This success may occur even if they remain in our house forever — but they are ABLE to self-support; they have the internal and external resources to continue with their lives. And it means, as a parent, I may not know whether I have had “success” for many years (perhaps not until they “successfully” send out the next generation from the nest).

     In short, although there are certainly biases as to what is involved with success, there is no universally accepted definition.

     How do you define success?

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

Tariffs: A simple idea but is it useful?

     A tariff is an import tax imposed by a government. It is a simple idea and this newsletter may be the shortest I have written.

     A tariff can be imposed on all products from a country, all products of a certain type from a country, or products produced by a country and imported via a specific company.

     Tariffs are an additive tax on products. This increases the cost to the consumer. It is traditionally used to protect domestic producers. For example, Country A sells product G at a price 25% less than that of a domestically produced product G. If we add a 50% tariff against Country A then domestic prices for product G may now be 25% LESS than that of products from Country A. Domestic producer “wins”. Consumer still “loses” as they will pay more.

     Since any country can impose a tariff, tariffs can be an economic weapon. Retaliatory tariffs are very common with both countries using the tariffs as weapons in an “economic war”. This can lead to a static situation where neither country “wins”. However, the consumer (you and I) still pays for the product and, with the tariff added, pays higher prices.

     Retaliatory tariffs are considered to be one factor triggering the Great Depression.

     Tariffs (retaliatory tariffs, in particular) can hurt producers as well as consumers. A tariff against a country or product, will cause their product to be less competitive and reduce their market. As a local example, tariffs imposed against US grain exports hurt grain producing farmers in the US as it reduces their market.

     Money from tariffs go to the government treasuries but will be paid for by the consumer (you and I). Thus, tariffs are a form of internal tax for citizens of a country.

     In all instances, a tariff will add to the cost and the consumer will pay for that cost with higher prices if they choose that product.

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

AI Caution: AI does have limitations to be aware of

     I took an AI course at the University of Idaho in the fall of 1976. Forty-nine years later they are releasing products that have that name associated with them. Is this the same AI as was talked about in 1976? No, not really. If you search for what kinds of AI exist, you will get various lists according to capability, functionality, and techniques/approach. The current AI implementations are at the beginning levels — often called “Narrow”.

     The course that I took in 1976 was more a matter of showing early investigation of programs such as Eliza and early approaches to Machine Learning (ML). Memory capacity, as well as CPU capabilities, were very, very small compared to that of today — and that limited implementations of various approaches. As is true of all computer programs, the main advantage of the computer doing it is that it can do things very, very, fast. Today’s computing power can achieve results only dreamed of in 1976. (And, if the reality is desired, it takes a lot of electricity and hardware to provide the capabilities even today.)

GIGO

     Current Narrow AI implementations such as ChatGPT, Siri, Google maps, or facial recognition are focused on a single type of task. Even the task of answering questions (ChatGPT, etc.) is a single focus. Responses are made according to the data that the program has had access to — and the training (yes/correct, no/incorrect) about appropriate responses. Two problems (among many) arise — are the data that are examined valid (do they meet definitions of facts and correctness) and is there bias (usually according to the trainer) — if they are given proper data but the trainer tells them to reject the proper data in favor of dubious, or clearly incorrect, data?

     Whether it is because of faulty data sources or deliberate subversion by the trainer, these are instances of “Garbage In Garbage Out” (GIGO). This is an old term used by early programmers but it is still valid today. If bad data are part (or all) of the input then the output cannot be trusted. A search response collator (such as ChatGPT) must be treated the same as individual searches which bring back various “hits” at different websites. In other words, even responses from “AI” bots need to be fact-checked.

     Even though you should not blindly trust the output, the use of a Narrow AI can be very useful. It can be used to very quickly gather, compare, and present results similar to the results if you had done a search (or multiple searches), read through the contents, and correlated the contents. The differences are that the Narrow AI can do it much faster but, since it does not have true creative/interpolating intelligence, it does have the caveats mentioned above.

Creativity

     When a Narrow AI presents you with a result in the form that you might submit somewhere or directly use, recognize that this is an “average” of many sets of example data. Although the definitions of such things as “average” are a bit vague — you will be presented with results that are somewhat the average of many possible results. It is very unlikely to be of the very highest quality but is likely to be adequate for your purposes. Personally, unless you have absolutely no skills in the area of the query, I would suggest using the AI result only as a starting template. Change, emphasize, and make it your own.

Permissions

     When a Narrow AI is trained on data, it just grabs data from wherever it has access. When presenting results, the sources are fully hidden from the user. Unlike what would happen if you did the same research, it is difficult (perhaps impossible) to know how much came from this and how much came from that. There is no explicit cautioning about taking the source into consideration and respecting intellectual property rights. This is a legal issue that needs to be pursued (soon) by various governments and legal bodies.

Timeliness

     When you do a search through the Internet, you have the option of age of responses. However, one of those options is to get only the very latest (say — past month) data. When you use a collating “AI” search bot, you do not know just how old the data are. During the first beta testing periods of the various collating search bots, they had an explicit warning that data was obtained only from sources older than a specific date — current data was not included. Lately, such warnings have disappeared but that does not mean that the latest data is incorporated. Given the way that these programs must be trained, it is very unlikely that the latest data are used.

Summary

     Use of an AI program can be beneficial. It can help you create a good, average, example of your desired result. It can speed up searches and correlations of large amounts of data. Results will not be as good as that from expert human intelligence. And there are potential permissions conflicts. Do not treat AI collating bot results as firm, objective, truth — treat all results the same as you would of any other search of data throughout the Internet — with care and a need for fact-checking of potentially subjective results.

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

Control: The Addictive Illusion

 I would love to be able to control my life. Control the fates of the country, the world, the challenges of the loved ones in my life. I can’t. No one can. That doesn’t mean to imply that we are powerless. We can help to make certain paths more likely and other paths less likely. We are movers of statistical probabilities!

But, somehow, that doesn’t sound all that impressive. It doesn’t sound like something to put on a tombstone or as part of a eulogy.

We are all going to die. Unless some dramatic discovery pops up, we have very little ability to even change our death date in a positive manner. (There are a lot of ways to change it in a negative manner.) A lot of the “do this and live longer” people have finally admitted that it isn’t true. So, they have moved to “do this and feel well longer”. I think this is a very healthy migration. Certainly, it is more accurate and, perhaps, by being more honest more people will be open to the message.

     There are many things that can happen to vividly demonstrate that we do not really have control over events of life. “Acts of God” are a group that is becoming more prevalent of late — due to climate change and shifts in population growth and the direction towards which many direct their hopes. Pay that final mortgage payment — earthquake! Farmers are especially susceptible to such — if one saves and budgets then most of the time a person can survive the lean years (and, due to droughts, floods, mechanical calamities, infestations, etc — there will be some). But, change the statistical frequency of events and all bets are off.

     There are also events, which abruptly change potential paths, that cannot be considered “Acts of God” — because they appear to be in the hands of people. Study for six years to obtain a degree in a field that, at the start of study, seems “lucrative and stable”. Public tastes change, technological “breakthroughs” happen, people wielding power make absurd decisions — what was once stable is now a platform of gelatin. Do your best to protect your family by taking only public transportation — and a drunk driver wipes out much of the family when you are walking along the sidewalk. Even when the statistical situation is stable, there is never a guarantee that you won’t be on the losing end of the curve.

     All that is about control of yourself and the world around you. Control of others? Please, please forget about that. It is possible to create confining parameters to greatly limit choices — a virtual, or physical, prison — but choices always exist even if none of them are desired. With choices, control vanishes. That does not mean to imply that people’s situations are their choices. Control doesn’t exist anywhere. And most might choose to live under very restrictive circumstances rather than the choice of death.

     Except for the method of imposing restrictions on choices, we cannot control anyone (including ourselves). We can, however, provide incentives and encouragement to persuade others (and ourselves) to want to change. We cannot make others happy but we can do things, say things, and work to arrange things such that they are more likely to allow themselves to feel happy. We cannot, and do not, make others angry — their reactions are up to them to choose. But, by pushing their “buttons” we can help to create conditions such that they are more likely to choose to be angry. And by creating conditions that they associate with happiness, we help them to allow themselves to be happy.

     People recognize that we cannot control the weather. They recognize we cannot control the traffic lights when we drive (at least, not most of us). There are other things “out there” that people acknowledge we cannot control. But most of us still think there are aspects of ourselves and others that we can control. Would that it were so.

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

Fear is the Mindkiller: and anger isnt that helpful either

     It seems that, to be considered a classic, books, movies, plays, etc. need you to take something with you. Perhaps you leave a musical singing, or humming, a song for the rest of the day. Perhaps there is a phrase, or idea, that you continue to think about long after. For me, there will always be phrases connected together. Most everyone remembers (and makes fun of) the opening line of “It was a dark and stormy night". They may not remember it was made better known (but not the first use of) in “A Wrinkle in Time” which, when introduced, was a ground-breaker in the same manner as J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books. One of the lines which accompanies me through life is “Fear is the Mindkiller” which is a Bene Gesserit teaching that assists Paul Atreides while taking a nerve stimulation test from the book (or movie) “Dune” by Frank Herbert.

     Fear is the mindkiller. Within ourselves, we have the physical and the inner (mental/spiritual) sides able to work together to accomplish things. If it is a purely physical routine task then it is okay to relegate the inside you to the sidelines. If I am driving to a frequent destination, I don’t truly have to think about what lanes to get in, where to turn, and so forth. But, if I am going to an infrequent destination, I need help from my inner self (or pay attention to the GPS <smile>) or I will automatically follow the route that I am used to. (I also have problems if someone else in the car presents me with something I have to seriously contemplate.)

     Sometimes the inner self helps one to accomplish a physical task. But “road rage” has never helped any driver. Not only are they tempted to do destructive things but their own control of the vehicle is badly impaired. When learning martial arts, the physical lessons go hand-in-hand with meditation. Sure, the Incredible Hulk can (and does) pound someone without any participation of his brain cells. But, especially if you are smaller and possibly physically weaker, a calm mind is needed to be effective. This allows the various exercises, you have practiced, to come forth and be available according to the strategies the inner you are creating. Your inner self can help or it can hinder.

     We have great difficulties following logical, and rational, thought processes when our emotions are heightened. Anger, hatred, sexual arousal, fear all accelerate actions which, if calm, would be considered a bad choice.

     Politicians, salespeople, and con people are very much aware of this situation. If a politician can awaken your anger, then what they actually say (or do) can fully escape your notice. Xenophobia (fear of the other) is always a useful tool for the unscrupulous; create a scapegoat upon which all can be blamed. A salesperson, or a marketing person, will try to make a connection between a product and a feeling. This helps to offset the rationality, or logic, of a purchasing decision.

     For the fully absorbed, their emotions can create a puppet-like existence where a fantasy reality is the only one to consider. In sociology, this is sometimes called the mass, or mob, mind. This is occurring, within the global community, more often nowadays — perhaps because of the high levels of stress arising out of a rapidly changing world and slowness of adaptation.

     There is no difference between a person who does not have much intelligence and a person who has a lot of intelligence and does not use it. Emotions can prevent people from using their intelligence — to the detriment of their own, and others’, safety and self-interest.

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

     

Data Silos: circular references within a boundary

     Occasionally, people will talk about “data silos”. More often, there is just a complaint that people don’t listen to enough sources of information to be able to have an accurate view of what is going on. That is a description of the effects of being trapped in a data silo but it isn’t a definition.

     A silo is designed to contain things, to gather them for storage and dispersal. When I was working the summer before going to college, one of my jobs was to help build grain silos back in Kansas near my hometown. It was hot work and I was really itchy by the time I got home but I believe I did my job correctly except for once when a tool malfunctioned. My biggest concern was for my hearing as using a power socket wrench inside the enclosed space caused huge, very loud, echos. Perhaps that experience happened to someone who later thought about how appropriate the name was for what was going on with information — an echo chamber within a data silo.

     A data silo provides a bordered, protected, area within which the data are “safe” from contamination, or influence, from outside sources. But an echo chamber describes how data found, or created, within the data silo will rapidly echo to fill all of the data sources. And, whether false or true, that will become an accepted fact.

     Wouldn’t people worry about the validity of information that they see only in one small area of the possible sources? No, not necessarily. One huge danger signal is when data sources say “don’t trust anything outside of our information sources”. It is very similar to “don’t look behind the curtain” for the Wizard of Oz. If they were truly confident about, and proud of, their data sources no such warning would be needed. The fact that they are saying “trust us and don’t trust anyone else” is a huge “red flag” and everything should be very carefully checked.

     One great example of a well-defined data silo concerns David Duke’s book “The Awakening”. He professes that it is an academic book with references, footnotes, and detailed justification for his views (which, thank goodness, are not mainstream views). But those references point to people who agree with his basic feelings and their references point to others who agree with both of them and THEIR references point back to David Duke; this is an instance of “circular reasoning”. There is never any “grounding” for any of the data or information. It is all self-created with a close group of colleagues all agreeing to support one another.

      This happens with many social media streams also. They refer to another media stream within the same data silo which — eventually — will point back to the first source. To a certain extent, our self-censorship will create a situation where most of the things we read, see, or hear reinforce our general views. Once again, however, when any data source warns against paying attention to other sources — LOOK ELSEWHERE!

     There may never be a single “truth” — but there can be facts as long as those facts are carefully detailed (I saw this in this context from this angle after having eaten this and so forth). Well-defined facts should remain the same no matter what the point-of-view of others may be. When you are checking out whether or not you are caught within a data silo first ask “is this an interpretation or a fact?”. If it is an interpretation then you should recognize that the more interpretations you can find the more likely you can come up with an analysis that is close to reality.

     But, if it is supposed to be a fact, you must cast your net out. If you encounter a single instance where they disagree with the fact then it is vital you determine which is the one that is true. And for facts, there should be only one correct answer.

     There are information sources that I have repeatedly checked and found their data to be wrong a large percentage of the time. After a bit, I just discard all of the information presented by them. Some may be true but it is so likely to be false that my time and energy can be better used checking other sources.

     Always keep an eye out for “the person behind the curtain” and beware of warnings to not check on reality elsewhere.

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

Normalization is abnormal: When journalism loses its intergrity

     I'm not really sure when it started. It was certainly present in 2016 but it may have been around for quite a while and I just didn't notice. This is about the peculiar idea of "normalization". This happens when people work hard to present a viewpoint -- particularly in comparison to another -- as "equally valid" even though they aren't even close to equally valid.

     The concept of normalization can be achieved in two different ways -- both ways bring multiple people or ideas into the same "normal" umbrella. One way tries to disguise, hide, or ignore aspects such that they appear to be "normal". The other works to expand the definition of "normal" such that the formerly abnormal (not hidden, not disguised) becomes a part of normal. This second form, closer to the dictionary definition, is unusual but not truly abnormal.

     Obviously, attempting to portray something as valid when it isn’t is a type of lie in itself. I guess that the economic world can celebrate the birth of a new vocation — the “fact-checker” — because of this devolution of news coverage. Once upon a time, if a newspaper reported something — including quotes from some celebrity news source — it would either only report what was true or would have expansion sentences “clarifying” the reality that exists around the quotes. Quoth the raven, “Nevermore”. Fact-checkers became required since journalists could no longer be trusted to report the facts. (Everyone recognizes that no one can get everything right all the time — but that is why the world invented retractions and corrections.)

     Just why did this “normalization” start appearing? In my opinion, mostly because of money.

     A quote from John Lydgate but more famously requoted by Abraham Lincoln:

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.”

     The new profit-oriented owners of newspapers, and broadcast stations, wanted to maximize their profits. They could publish the full facts, as far as they could be determined, and possibly irritate some of their readers or advertisers. Or they could go the realtor “beige” route (few people like beige but almost no one objects to it). Strip enough of the facts away that it seemed more palatable to those that might have objected but leave enough facts that both sides were represented. Or, allow a group to use a name that was highly misleading without putting the name in quotes.

     This is “normalization” and it skews reality such that the information presented is no longer useful. In my opinion, this is why “mainstream” corporate media has lost so much credibility — because they aren’t credible anymore (amazing, isn’t it?).

     Another way to look at normalization is by looking at two people as an example. Everyone has good points and everyone has bad points. At a certain level of research, person A has 6 good points and 2 bad points. At that same level of research, person B has 1 good point and 10 bad points. In a “normalized” article, they would each have 1 bad point and 1 good point presented. They seem fairly similar in morality, don’t they? Not the same but rather balanced. But the reality is that one is much worse than the other.

     So, one form of normalization is where we take two (or more) items or people and start ignoring what we don’t want to disclose about them (it can be applied to both). And, since we also want them to be considered of equal believability, lies are allowed to remain unchallenged and, thus, assumed by the reader to be true.

     Another, more constructive, form of normalization works to make the previously unaccepted acceptable. My mother-in-law had her lawn planted in low-water-consumption, low-labor, native plants. Practical, good for the earth, and the only such lawn on the block or even the entire section of the city. Luckily, the property was not part of a HomeOwners Association (HOA) whose primary purpose is to homogenize the neighborhood. Making earth-friendly landscaping acceptable would be a form of normalization. Or the Civil Rights movement. The 1960s did not achieve close to what it hoped in terms of civil rights but it did strive to normalize the existence of multiple skin pigment combinations to be an acceptable part of the community and partially succeeded.

     In both situations, normalizing brings the abnormal “into the fold” — either by manipulating the facts or by widening the acceptability of characteristics. In the above example of person A and person B, normalization COULD have been approached by presenting all of the facts unearthed about each person and then an attempt to make all the points acceptable. This is not usually done because it takes much longer to shift community acceptability criteria than it does to eliminate, and massage, the facts to allow them to be perceived as acceptable.     This is not the only manner in which the standards of journalism has declined within printed, broadcast, or streaming media — but it is a very important one. Being able to compare a whole idea, or a whole person, to another is vital. Of course, as discussed in a prior newsletter, what is reported cannot, or unearthed, be complete — there are too much data to be able to research and present — but, when known, there should not be deliberate distortion such that the presentation becomes a lie.

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

Communication: common definitions are required

     It seems to have accelerated over the past ten years but there have always been many obstacles to communication. Emotions often stop us from communicating clearly. Some people are shy and have difficulty speaking up and drawing attention to themself. Some stutter, have trouble hearing, or have other physical impediments. But all of these are problems with initiating communication. Once we have started talking, or signing, or using drum signals, or whatever we still have the situation where we want to exchange information with other people, or another person.

     In order to exchange information, we present the information. This can take various forms. It can be via sound — words with individual phonemes. It can be via signals — morse code via electrical wire, light beacons from mountaintop to mountaintop. drum rhythms and codes, finger movements either via touch or sight, and so forth.

The information must then move from the generating location to the receiving location. A light signal cannot succeed if something is in between the generator and the receiver. An electrical signal cannot work if there is no power. A vocal shout may not be heard clearly if the background noise includes a large crowd or a nearby thunderstorm.

     The next step is reception. Someone who is deaf cannot hear an audible signal, or voice, no matter how loud it is shouted (but they may be able to read lips in a possible scenario). An electrical signal only works if the other end has something to decode it.

     We now get to the center of this newsletter. There is a very large difference between hearing something, listening to something, and understanding something. The first is associated with the transmission, as talked about above. But the second is a matter of attention. My ears may hear the noises of speech but if I am thinking about next week’s menu and grocery list, I may not note anything of what has been said. If my eyes are turned a different direction from a light beacon then, not seeing it, I cannot possibly extract meaning from the signal.

     We have seen how many steps are needed to get a message from one person to another such that they are now ready to understand, and use, the information. The final hurdle may be hard to believe because — surely — if they have received, and listened to, the message they must know.

     Even if both are speaking the same language, the receiver is placed into a position of needing to decode the information — even if it appears that you are both speaking the same language. The more aspects that are the same between you, the better chance you will be understood but words are understood based upon familiarity with the language, the histories of the speaker and the receiver, and the general environment and background of how they use the word. If it is not the same for the speaker as it is for the receiver, it can appear that they are communicating when, in fact, no information is being passed along.

     Words have definitions. Almost no one uses the same precise meaning as in the dictionary. Someone who is as detail-oriented as I am may have a better chance of using words in the same manner as officially detailed but that does not give me a much better chance of being understood by another who uses a completely different definition. Some words that are currently being used in speech that no longer have universally agreed upon meanings appear to be:

• conservative

• liberal

• progressive

• radical

• socialism

• pro-life

• pro-choice

• fascism

• totalitarianism/authoritarianism

• woke

• democracy

• liberty

• freedom

     If I talk with someone who declares themselves to be liberal, I do not know what that means to them. Thus, I cannot have a discussion about liberalism. The same thing holds for conservative. Certainly, the working definition of conservative is completely different from that of someone calling themselves conservative in 1970. People can, and do, use the word socialism as an insult without having the slightest idea as to what socialism is or how it relates to modern society.

     Society within the U.S. is quite divisive right now — and some segments of the political community want it to remain divisive (or to be even more divisive). They succeed as they eliminate common definitions of words — eliminating the possibility of discussion of various topics. The only method of progress, in my opinion, is to back away from the words which are supposed to indicate types of actions or thoughts and use those words that have, as of yet, escaped the scrambling of definitions. Instead of liberal, one can use those components of being liberal such as support of unions, support of people pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, support of equality of access to resources and the opportunity to improve their situation, and so forth. Instead of democracy, one can talk about the ability for all legally qualified voters to submit their input, the need for creating common solutions that all can live with, and the willingness to abide by the laws as determined within those democratic procedures.

     Of course, as a writer and a person who loves words, I would prefer that we reclaim the definitions of words and use them as defined. But, even when one earnestly attempts to keep in mind the definitions within accepted dictionaries, words will always have different nuances based upon personal history and environment.

     Communication only takes place when the ideas, and thoughts, are mutually understood. Not easy in the best of times — and these do not appear to be the best of times.

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