Vice Wars: Supply supports demand. Why do we continue to ineffectually attack supply rather than demand?

     Vices — desires that are considered unacceptable by society (or parts of society). Such vices include drugs (alcohol, opioids, tobacco, …) and personal interactions (prostitution, gambling, …)

     A basis of capitalism is the idea of supply and demand. Although the United States is an extremely strong proponent of capitalism (and, at present, unrestrained capitalism) this reality seems to be easily forgotten.

     As long as demand exists, people will find ways to meet it with supplies. As soon as the Eighteenth Amendment was passed in 2019 (and, later, with additional enforcement provided by the Volstead Act), groups and individuals started determining ways to continue to meet the demand for alcohol. Alas, there is a difference between illegal commerce and legal commerce. By definition, meeting the demand for something illegal is a criminal activity and, thus, requires weakening of, and removal of, any obstructions that might impede the delivery of supplies for that demand.

     In that period, the continued demand built up the strength of organized crime and filled their coffers. It also created holes in government and enforcement via corruption and, as often possible with humans and their weaknesses, blackmail and extortion. All in all, the period of Prohibition was one of the strongest supports of organized crime within the US (and, to an indirect degree, the rest of the world) in history. Yet it was all following the principles of capitalism.

     When the Twenty-First Amendment was passed in 1931, it was done as a reluctant admission that Prohibition not only didn’t work but was a huge impetus for crime and corruption. The “temperance” movement continued to exist (and still does to some extent) but the majority said “no more”.

• So, with that flagrant example of the inability to both support capitalism and, at the same time, fight against capitalism (but only in areas defined as unwanted — without removing the demand), the United States would surely have learned its lessons?

• It would admit that supply and demand can be manipulated but not eliminated?

• It would observe that making the supply illegal does not affect demand but only hurts the surrounding infrastructure by continuing the supply outside, and through, the law?

     No. It is rare for groups of humans to adequately remember, and learn, from history. We see that over and over and over.

     And now we see the consequences of the continued folly of this fight against capitalistic principles, Rather than increase efforts, and support, to REDUCE demand (which immediately reduces supply, prices, and competition) — we continue to fight the supply side. Although we have yet to see any evidence that current attacks are even associated with the supply-side of fentanyl trade, we know that it will not work against any potential fentanyl problems.

So, why does it continue? Attacking the supply side, in itself, increases profits.

• By making it more difficult to bring supply to the demand, the price goes up and the profits go up for the suppliers.

• It adds jobs to the economy — to attempt suppression of the supply.

• With the increased profits received by the suppliers, they can give back money to politicians and enforcement officials to keep anti-vice laws in effect and to create the supply line holes which are useful for their business. Also known as corruption and misdirection.

• The actions of “attacking the supply side” can be used as camouflage, or distractions, for other political, or economic, purposes. Such as the current attacks on (totally unproven) “fentanyl supply” from Venezuela.

• It can give the appearance that something is being done to reduce the amount of the vice (whatever vice it may be).

     Attacking the supply side creates great profits (and jobs within both enforcement and criminal production). The fact that these profits are counter-productive to reducing demand, and support corruption and crime, is “beside the point”.

To reduce vices, reduce demand. So simple, so hard.

[ NOTE: In cases where unwilling people are involved, there are laws about kidnapping, extortion, rape, blackmail, theft, battery, assault, and so forth ]

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.

There's no Such Thing as a Small Role: Everyone, and every action, is important so let's aim for positive actions

      My birth certificate lists the professions (at the time) of my parents. My father was a roughneck and my mother was a waitress. And I am quite proud of both of them. When you think about people, and what they do, sometimes it is useful to think about life without them. Not quite in the same manner as poor old George in “It’s a Wonderful Life” but from a functional view.

     Enter a restaurant and there is no one to take your order and no one to serve your food or clean up after you have left for the next person. Oh sure, there are places to eat where you perform each of those roles — and that is okay if you expect it. But it isn’t the same experience. Take it one step farther and whisk the cook(s) out of the kitchen and move them to someplace else. Now you not only order your own food but you have to cook it. There’s a bit of assistance in that, presumably, the “restaurant” has supplies on hand and the means to cook things but it’s not a very long step from cooking at home.

     I have to admit that I can only imagine a roughneck at his, or her, work. I can look, and have looked, up the job on Google. I know that they do much of the hard, “dirty”, (often dangerous) work around an oil well but that’s not the same as actually being part of the crew. They do the physically demanding tasks like handling heavy pipes and tools, and maintaining drilling equipment. They also drive, and direct, heavy machinery. It is hard to imagine an oil well created without a crew of roughnecks (risking their necks, fingers, and more) on the job. About the closest I come to such work is having driven Caterpillar® tractors on my summer job at the wheat farm.

     I have done quite a few types of jobs throughout my life — not counting the myriad tasks associated with being a house husband. If I had never rogued a wheat field, the wheat might have had too high of a percentage of contamination — decreasing the price, and income, for the farm. If I hadn’t done my job as a donut baker, then where would the donuts have come from to ease the load of many a person on their way home from work? Perhaps without my weavings, someone’s life would have been that slight bit less pleasurable? I don’t know but I do know that there was some measure of difference, and need, for the tasks that I have done in my life.

     As I worked in various corporate offices — from a Computer Science department in a university (Kansas State University, to be precise) to work at Bell Labs and other places, it became obvious where the true needs, and values, came from. When the department head was gone for a week travelling, did it make any difference to the life of the people working in the offices and labs? No, not that much. If they were gone for a month or more I certainly hope that it would have made a difference. But have the executive assistant be gone with a cold for a couple of days and things literally ground to a halt. No one even knew how to do the things that were needed to keep the building functional.

     As you meander through your days, especially at this time of enhanced gratitude and hope, pay attention to the folks around you and what they do for you and what they do around you. Step back a moment. What would life be like if they didn’t exist? Likely a worse place. So, acknowledge them, and thank them, before they “disappear”.

     Let’s not just say everyone is important — let’s act like everyone is important.

Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, Blessed Chanukah, and Happy Holidays to all!

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.

Insecurity, Corruption, and Democracy: You may be able to have one without the other, but insecurity certainly fosters corruption

     There is a concept called baksheesh in the Middle Eastern world (it also exists elsewhere). It can refer to positive actions such as charitable giving or a non-European type of tipping. In these cases it is voluntary (though requests may be persistent and forceful). But the other side of the word is the negative side — the forceful, requisite (but not always openly stated) giving for corruption and bribery. In this newsletter/blog, I will focus on the latter.

     From the viewpoint of those who have had the good fortune to have been raised, and lived, in a society where even the poor have some place to turn, this forced giving for corruption or bribery seems very bad — a multiple type of corruption. Within many economically poorer cultures, it is just an aspect of life — like having to put a stamp on a letter before mailing it.

     There is a large correlation between corruption and bribery and being part of a society with large income discrepancies. A few rich, many poor, and many poor that don’t see (a viewpoint that may be true) a path to non-poverty other than making use of their position to get what economic, and further leverage, they can.

     In such societies, getting such civil positions is a huge achievement in itself. Loyalty and connections are much more important than ability or qualification. The position may not include salary or benefits. Such is the role, and requirement, of baksheesh within the system. Why tax all for paying reasonable salaries and benefits for the bureaucracy and civil servants? Force those using such services to “pay as they go”. And if some must pay more, and possibly pay in “coin” other than money, that is part of the economic game.

     When people think about democracy, they often think about voting. People vote for, or against, certain issues or people. In the case of representative democracies (the majority of global democracies), they are actually voting for, or against, people who will represent their views — they do not vote directly on issues. But democracy is closely related to egalitarianism. All people equal under the law. All people equal in access to resources. All people equal in treatment as having an innate worth.

     As this is expanded, it is easy to see that egalitarianism does not co-exist well with income inequality. In actuality, income inequality is rather the antithesis of the idea of “we the people” or any other type of egalitarianism. Baksheesh, social levels, perhaps even hereditary rankings, all are at odds with democracy although there is no “pure” democracy in existence.

     The “Founding Fathers” of the United States recognized that a “pure” democracy was only a goal. George Washington said “Democracy is not always easy, but it is worth fighting for.” John Jay said “Democracy is about building a society that is fair and just for all.” There are a lot of such quotes, which can be found here. The general gist is that democracy can be a great system, but it requires a lot of work, and can only be done when everyone stays properly informed and participates.

     Here in the United States, we are having a lot of difficulty with the requirements. Our populace is not well informed, we consider ourselves lucky if 50% of the eligible voters actually vote, and the ability to connect with, and communicate needs to, our legislators is being strangled by an election system that overwhelmingly favors the rich. Even the highest level of the court system is badly corrupted by income inequality and the oligarchy. Baksheesh, long considered inappropriate for United States politics and economy, is becoming acceptable — or, within the current Administration, required — even though it is not called by that name. Position via loyalty. Competency is no longer required — it may even be a negative item for consideration for a position. Such is the path for making a country much worse than it has been.

     We have a large number of problems in the United States that have not been properly dealt with, largely because the primary efforts have been to redirect the resources and wealth into the hands of the already excessively wealthy.

     Concentration of wealth and the lack of a coherent approach to change and the future creates huge problems for the 98% iin the United States. We have three younger children in the family who cannot find jobs that will allow them to move out of the house. Two have recent bachelor’s degrees in previously marketable skills (Computer Science) and the third has been scared away from his major (secondary school english teaching) by the attacks on teachers, education, and libraries. Their friends can give them a listening ear but those friends are facing their own problems.

     But it can change, and current generations are waking up to the problems that have been let slide for too long. Within the United States, that can be addressed within the primary system by making the less corrupted, and the more dedicated to the citizens, be the candidates. But it requires active involvement. As John Adams said — “Democracy is about building bridges, not walls”.

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.

Infotainment: When pandering to predetermined mindsets is more profitable than telling the truth

     When Rupert Murdoch started Fox News in 1996, his primary motivation was to produce a profit-creating entity. The Australian-born oligarch (current estimated wealth $23.6 billion) obtained U.S. citizenship to meet the legal requirements to purchase US media outlets. And that he did — his News Corp. is an umbrella organization that controls a lot of media companies — including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and 800 companies in 50 countries.

     Profit, as stated earlier, is the prime motivator. Although one of the first to recognize that creation of media news could be manipulated to encourage certain viewers and advertisers to remain loyal — which stabilizes and increases profit margins, his stance has brought other large media organizations into the same viewpoint. Profit is to be enhanced by presenting what the viewers want to see/hear/read.

     Note that, although the tabloid journals (such as the National Enquirer) were present (and before that, “yellow journalism” — referring to the quick yellowing of the cheap paper used for printing of non-journalistic newspapers), Fox News was among the first to move the structure to broadcast media. It has since spread both to streaming as well as to studios theoretically “progressive” or “left”. It is further on the increase because the current Administration is penalizing, and forcing behavior, contrary to the First Amendment.

     This is the definition of infotainment used within this newsletter. Presenting entertainment as journalistic information is infotainment. If you do a search on the term, you will find that the term is also used within “infotainment systems” which indicates a system (such as a car dashboard system) which can present entertainment AND information (traffic, maps, real news, …) Infotainment, such as presented within Fox News, is a merged version of sometimes journalism and often self-created stories that will appeal to the audience and advertisers.

     Journalism is just too iffy. The news may reinforce the viewers preconceptions or it may counter them. Profits, and advertiser and consumer loyalty may vary. Undesirable. So, control the contents. If the real news would not appeal to the targeted audience, change it or invent new stories to supplant the true, but unappealing, news. And, if a particular set of stories seems to appeal to the targeted audience, then create more of them. Free publicity in the world of politics (anywhere, but particularly the US) is “gold” and likely was a primary reason for the outcome of the US Presidential race in 2016.

     Profit is the primary goal of infotainment. But selection of the targeted audience, and subsequent invention/manipulation of the information presented, is according to the desires of the owner(s). With journalism, as done following proper standards, the news is (or should be) free of bias (as much as humanly possible). This is not a goal of infotainment and the bias will be slanted (lightly or heavily) in the direction of the opinions of the owner(s) of the studio.

What are journalism’s standards? While there is not a single definitive list, they include:

• Truth/Accuracy: Journalists should ensure they report accurate information by verifying all research and facts, using reliable sources, attributing information, etc.

• Independence: Journalists should act independently of political, corporate, financial, or personal affiliations that could be considered conflicts of interest.

• Fairness/Impartiality: Journalists should consider every side in a story and present each piece of the story in a balanced, objective way.

• Humanity: Journalists should minimize harm by being aware of the impact their words and images could have on other people.

• Accountability: Journalists should hold themselves responsible; they should correct errors, listen to their audience, and provide solutions to any issues that may arise due to their reporting.

Note that “normalizing” is NOT a journalistic standard. Evil is evil. Stupid is stupid.

     An infotainment channel does not require adherence to any of these standards and, with media in the control of ultra-wealthy individuals and mega corporations, the larger conduits are less and less able to believed and followed. This leaves a dilemma for consumers who WANT journalistic standards to be followed. Much smaller, independent, sources are needed but judging the adherence to standards is then left to the individual. Many will SAY they adhere to such — not all do.

     I don’t have an answer — certainly not an easy answer. But, referring to an earlier newsletter/blog, it is necessary to “question everything”. Fact-check, check for references, consistency, occasional retractions (no one gets things right every time), language use. I continue to subscribe to one newsletter that proudly says “unbiased news you can trust” but the language that they use is highly biased leaving the rest of their reportage rather suspicious.

     We NEED journalistic standards. We need help in examining the world. It is exhausting attempting continuous checking. But, at the present, it’s what we have.

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.

Conspiracy Theories: Opening up secrets or removing trust ... or a bit of both?

      I have a favorite bumper sticker. I haven’t seen it for a while, but it says:

“Just Because I’m Paranoid Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Out to Get Me”

     A “conspiracy theory” is generally defined as “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators”. A group of people conspire to make something happen. The group can be a political group, or an ethnic group, or even a family group (certain rich dynasties seem to attract conspiracy theories).

     Just as in the bumper sticker above, it is difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory. On the other hand, there are usually “holes” in the chain of “evidence” that connects the group to the event. (That doesn’t matter to those who want to believe the theory.)

     These holes include circular reasoning (X happens because of Y, Y happens because of A, A happens because or X). They include lack of proof of presence (we don’t know where Ms. Q was at the time, perhaps they were at THIS location doing that). Motivation is often connected to pre-conceived notions as to character or beliefs about what they are trying to do in more general terms. Denials cannot be true because the denials come from “the guilty parties”.

     My personal feeling is that the most distinctive aspect of conspiracy theories is reverse reasoning. A person starts at the desired conclusion and the group that they want to tie to that conclusion and then start building “evidence” that connects the two. A good way of recognizing a conspiracy theory is that it usually only talks about the two end-points — the group/people and the event/conclusion. If pressed, some may be able to point to in-between logic which can then be examined. But most people passing along conspiracy theories don’t know of any (if any exists) “evidence” that the endpoints are connected.

     If conspiracies never happened then they could all be dismissed without evaluation. They sound crazy so they must be crazy. Back to the above bumper sticker. Conspiracies can happen and we have all heard something of the nature “it must be true, I could never make up something that crazy”. The aspect of being unbelievable makes them more believable simply because life is unpredictable and events happen that we could never explain.

     So, if a conspiracy theory MIGHT be true, why does it matter? Primarily because, most of the time, it is usually NOT true. As someone (among many) who tends to make up statistics when I don’t have anything solid at hand — I would say that 98% of conspiracy theories are not true. The exact number is likely to be wrong but it is certainly a high percentage. The reason this is so is due to the reverse logic — building up a “case” based on what we want. There are so many possible paths that can be taken, from the end to the supposed decision starting point, that having the entire logic chain being correct just fades away into unlikelihood.

     And believing when it isn’t true can cause a lot of damage. It can also cause violent action based on the incorrect assumptions. Since conspiracy theories tie specific groups or individuals to the conclusion, it can be very tempting for those who have chosen to believe them to follow the short-term approach of eliminating that group or individual.

     What about those few cases where it is true? Well, as the saying goes — “a broken clock is right twice a day”. If a conspiracy theory is true then the same conclusions and connections can be achieved via a more direct investigation.

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.

Unto the Seventh Generation: short-term thinking versus sustainable life

 There are a number of First Nation quotes concerning the matter, but the most famous quote about the “seventh generation” comes from the Great Law of Peace of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy: “In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.”

This quote, and philosophy, does not apply to every First Nation, African tribe, Australian aboriginal group, etc. But the quote, inclusive of a much closer association with the land as stewards rather than possessors, does apply to many.

As part of “colonization”, a focus on economic gain, as well as power structures and control, soon dismissed, and overcame, any such far-reaching philosophy. Short-term results became a paramount value of colonial societies and it continues to be embedded in our cultures to this day.

“The seventh generation.” Right now, we have a long list of “generations” that have been named. (It used to just be “in my mother’s time” or “in my great-uncle’s time”.) Modern usage groups people into 20-year “generations”. The Generations presently talked about are the Lost, Greatest, Silent, Baby Boom, Generation X, Millennial (or Generation Y), Z (or iGen), Alpha, and Beta generations. The boundaries are specific for statistical purposes but fuzzy for self-application (such as, “I am Gen Z”).

The Millennial Generation folks (presently the largest population group) are considered to have been born in the years 1981 through 1996 and Generation Z from 1997 through 2010 (so, as of the publication of this newsletter, ages 15 through 28). Since actual decisions are difficult to pin to a specific generation (in spite of fingers pointed at “Boomers”) it is difficult to say how many generations since a decision has been made. Certainly, the Gen Z people are within the seventh generation ages to consider and, globally, Gen Z are presently saying (in less polite terms) “your decisions have screwed up our lives and we want it corrected now”. They are within that window of first generation to seventh generation and they recognize that they were not taken into consideration when the decisions, which have resulted in the current world situation, were made.

People within the earlier generations looked to the quarterly report and definitely did not look to the seventh generation. Note that it is not the ENTIRE generations that are responsible — many have actively protested against a short-term mentality — but the decision makers and those actively making the rules have done a very poor job when they planned (if there was any plan) their present with its effects on current days. With the Millennials in the plurality and the Gen Zs struggling to enter into a healthy economy, there will be much pressure world-wide to clean up the messes that have resulted.

“Messes”? What “messes”?

• Climate/Ecology — short-term use for short-term benefits, with almost no long-term views, has directly led to accelerated climate change, overwhelming pollution, species destruction, and a general lessening of the ability of the planet to support us.

• Economic — general resources have been encouraged to be concentrated into the hands of the few as the goal of some type of “game” and the world is left with millions of people lacking food, clothing, education, security and realistic hopes for the future.

• Education — Many in the past have said that our children, and their education, is of the greatest importance. But there has been no follow-through with the provision of adequate resources and support for needed for proper education. In the US there is a majority of adults with the equivalent of less than a fifth grade reading level. The education system is currently left to rely on those who steadfastly look beyond their own welfare and needs in order to try to fill in positions for teachers and librarians in overpopulated schools and classrooms.

• Divisiveness — based on economic and power interests, countries and people have been deliberately encouraged to compete against each other for dwindling resources rather than collectively to improve conditions.

Much damage has been done, and there is a lot of anger, but if we can collectively use that anger to create healthier paths to the future, life can truly become the “better place” toward which politicians say we are moving toward.

Culture shifts are very difficult but they are even more difficult when not attempted. It is up to all of us to strive for a change that reaches for, and creates, a better future.

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.

Time: Flexible, inconstant, and subjective

      “Does anybody really know what time it is?” As I progress to complete my 68th year and start on the 69th, it is hard to look at it all and ask “where did the time go?” There are some years, days, and events that seem to be (recognizing that memory is a tricky thing) crystal clear. And there are other segments that I have no recollection of. I do know that everyone around me keeps getting younger and younger.

     But the song that hits me hardest is “Time in a Bottle” by Jim Croce. Change is an absolutely unavoidable aspect of life. So, if you take a “snapshot” at any period of time, you will be entering into a unique set of circumstances. Perhaps your parent, or child, is no longer around and you want to be able to spend more time with them — to retreat to that time period that was preserved. Perhaps it was before the development of television and the era of radio and the stage was leading the way. Freezing time does no good but being able to go back into a specific set of circumstances can allow new decisions and new paths. As an optimist, one could always hope that “this time” it would be better.

     Time is part of the way our minds interact with our physical environment. For some cultures, it is perceived differently than for other cultures. For some, the perception of time is highly structured with everything done in its segment and all to be done exactly as designed. For others, “in a while” may mean anything from five minutes to five days. Neither is right, neither is wrong.

     What about those who believe they can see directly into other parts of the “time stream” — the past and future? As is true of many things in life, such cannot be “proven” one way or another. Comparing time to the realities of entropy in physics, time should be a single direction and happen at a (averaged) constant rate. But, locally, it is possible to reverse entropy. For a specific contained situation, would it possible to reverse time? Great for speculation, not so great for coming to conclusions.

     We are all aware that (even for highly structured cultures) our perception of time can slow down or speed up. I have not yet been in a death-threatening situation so I cannot speak about “seeing one’s life go by” in a few moments. But some do report such. I was in a car accident once upon at time and the time seemed to go very slowly but — at the same time — I was unable to do anything to change anything. I was trapped in a slow time bubble. On the other hand, unless I spend the time meditating, time can seem to extend a lot while I am waiting for something I anticipate.

     I have always been a fan of “the Flash” superhero character. You may have noted that his speed is a matter of relativity. He goes fast, everything around him goes slowly. Unlike my situation above, he IS able to do things within his accelerated time bubble. An unresolved question for him is whether his time in the accelerated time bubble subtracts from his lifeline in the regular time world.

     And so we go — into methods of time preservation. Cryogenics anyone? In this situation, you have had your body placed into very slow, very cold, circumstances — you continue your life as if in a very slow bubble. You shouldn’t age. But no one is completely certain that you can be brought back to normal time. If you are successfully revived, it is a type of time travel — in one direction only. Potentially the longest preservation is also part of changing time scales. Digitalization of the mind is presently fantasy but, if possible, it would lead to time scales of nanoseconds instead of seconds. Better have a hobby to stay busy during those LOOOONNNNGGG periods of inactivity.

Tick, tick. Tock, tock.

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.

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.

Bias, Prejudice, and Social Change: Sometimes it is hard to see the border

     I don’t know of anyone who isn’t biased. Yes, that includes myself. Biases come about based on our personal histories. Our families. Our experiences. Our friends. What we watch. What we listen to (and whom we do NOT listen to). What we read. All of these work together to form our personal histories. And that will cause biases whether we acknowledge it or not.

     I know that I am biased against the wealthy. (Our family called them the “suits”.) And it was reinforced by injustices that I observed while growing up. I know that I am biased towards women (growing up in a matriarchy, it could have gone either direction). It is by bringing biases to the conscious mind that we can work with them and get past them.

     Which brings us to the title of this newsletter/blog. According to some legal dictionaries I have read, bias is when you will choose something (for or against) if it is possible to do such in view of evidence and knowledge. Whereas, prejudice (I grew up with it called '“prejudism” — but the dictionaries INSIST that that is not the correct word (even dictionaries can be prejudiced)) is the same words it is based on — pre judged. I will not believe (or will only believe) something even if all of the evidence says it is not true (false). A bias, that a person is unaware of, may have very similar effects as for a prejudice.

     “To Kill a Mockingbird” is an expansion of the definition of prejudice. Everyone in the courtroom, including the judge and jurors, are fully aware and knowledgeable that Boo is innocent. But acknowledging that he is innocent would be an indictment of their entire social system. Therefore he is treated as if he were guilty.

     A prejudice is a foundation stone of a society and there are many laws, rules, and customs built on top of such foundation stones. Society must be literally rebuilt to eliminate a prejudice. There is great resistance to this because, in any society, some will benefit more from the society and others will benefit less (possibly some MUCH more and others MUCH less). This is why “To Kill a Mockingbird” is so high up on book banning lists. Those who benefit find it very difficult to surrender some of that benefit. This fits into Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (my blog about this is here — I don’t want to dig too much deeper within this note).

     Without digging deeply into Maslow, I will list the names of the needs in order — physiological, safety, love, esteem and self-actualization. Changing a society brings all of these needs into question and instability — but especially those of physiological and safety needs. From the point of view of those who benefit more, questions arise. If I treat all people fairly, will I still have a job? What will I have to give up? Can I continue to provide for my family? Will I starve?

     These are not irrational questions (but reactions may be quite irrational). If you have a society where 50% of the population gets 95% of the resources, then making it equal will greatly reduce the amount available to those that currently benefit.

     Biases and prejudices do not apply only to the “isms” (racism, anti-semitism, genderism, etc.) Society has biases (not usually prejudices as awareness of such biases can override them) to reward those who are taller, deemed more attractive, speak in a specific dialect, etc. It would not create as much of an earthquake to change, or eliminate, such biases (it possibly would if they were prejudices) but it is still NOT easy. It might require some exterior need to initiate changes. That could be (and almost definitely has been) a basis for a science fiction book.

     Biases can be reduced with awareness. The reduction of biases WILL change society and culture — but slowly as the reduction is done slowly. Elimination of prejudice has to be done deliberately with full recognition of the gains for some and the losses for others.

     That brings us back to Maslow because solving the universal base physiological and safety needs is a requirement for progress. If everyone is confident that they will be able to meet those basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, safety … then it is less difficult to shuffle the deck of society. Doing that requires the shifting of another foundation stone — that of distribution of resources.

     It’s not easy (as history shows us over and over).

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

Censorship: When a group, or individual, is terrified that the truth shall prevail over lies.

 "The real conflict is between truth and lies. One mark of a deteriorating society is when people cannot discern between truth and lies." — Ann Landers

     I used to firmly believe that, when presented with the truth and presented with a lie, the truth would always prevail (eventually). Ideally, I still think this is true, but with the advent of data silos (self-imposed restriction of information available), I no longer believe this is always so.

     A lie cannot be exposed if people choose to never to listen to the truth.

     Note that there is a huge difference between hearing and listening. Lies repeated over and over do not magically become true. And the truth presented calmly can be heard but never listened to even though it stays the truth.

     When a group, or individual, is afraid that people will believe the truth then their only option is to impose restrictions on the ability to hear/see/read that truth. Data silos are the form that it takes for self-restriction. Censorship is when restrictions are imposed from the outside. Such censorship may be enacted by governments or by local subsets of society.

     I usually do not take part in threads on the net about book banning in schools and libraries because those working to ban books rarely listen. Of late, I tried to interject a bit of rationality into a thread but pulled back quickly because they quickly started “responding” to things that were never said.

     One thread talked about removing pornography and sex from school libraries.

I asked them to name such a book.
          Hundreds of people on the thread — no one could name a book
IF someone had named a book, I would have asked for a page number or a quote
          But not one person had named a book and I have more faith in our
          hard-working librarians than I am in what is literally a mob that
          is just repeating what they hear from someone else and don’t care if it is true.

     I do know of books that contain “hard core” sexuality — though I do not seek them out. One set comes from a very popular author who also writes lesbian romance books. Another is from a New York Times bestselling author who doesn’t hold back an iota of what can be done with heterosexual bodies. But they are not in our school libraries and, frankly, I have never heard of any protests about them.

     So, what books do get banned — and why? In the list of the most-often banned books in the US, there are various reasons mentioned. “The top ten reasons books were challenged and banned included sexual content (92.5% percent of books on the list); offensive language (61.5%); unsuited to age group (49%); religious viewpoint (26%); LGBTQIA+ content (23.5%); violence (19%); racism (16.5%); drugs, alcohol, and smoking (12.5%); "anti-family" content (7%); and political viewpoint (6.5%).” [from referenced Wikipedia article].

     As mentioned above, most people who talk about banning books have not, themselves, read the book — and often don’t even know the title or author of the book (though sometimes it is ONLY the title or author that they know). But there is usually an initiator and, presumably and hopefully, that initiator of trying to ban a book HAS read the book.

     So, given the above “top ten” reasons to ban books, what are the underlying discomforts? For sexual content, it is possible that there are some books that slip past the scrutiny of even the best, eagle-eyed, librarian. And it is possible that there are some books that really should be pulled from a school library. This includes for the other stated reasons. There are books that are not suitable for particular ages — and when they have slipped past the educational guardians there usually is not much difficulty in getting them removed.

     I will also note that, even if banned, people can (and will) still read (or watch or listen to) them — just less easily. It calls out that the primary issue is that some parents want the government to control their children. Parents SHOULD be INVOLVED with their children and learn WITH their children and be PART of their children’s lives.

     But most of the criticisms I have run across are not about specific sexuality in a book but, rather, the idea that sexuality exists. A book about a mother and father raising three children is usually not disapproved of by any. But a family where two men raise three children is very likely to be objected to. Or a family where a “mixed racial” couple are raising three children. Or a family where a mother and father is raising a child who is very uncomfortable being treated as a specific gender or the child is attracted to others who are of the same gender. The root problem is acceptance of a situation different from the societal norm — not any explicit sexuality.

     Another situation is telling the tale of a situation that is not a positive one. Abuse — physical, sexual, or emotional — is not a comfortable subject. The same is true of the abuse of drugs or other substances. But people, including adolescent and younger children, do encounter such situations. Pretending that these situations do not exist is not helping children. They may be encountering such situations at home. How do they know that such situations are not normal and they should not feel terrible because they have been caught up in such situations? What if their parents are divorcing and they don’t understand, their parents cannot calmly explain, and the children may even blame themselves? In such cases, the books may be a literal “lifeline” for the children. The problem is not the book (or movie) but the reality that they feel they have no one to talk with about such problems.

     A third category enters the worlds of changed societal norms (acceptable language, behaviors, social strata, environmental or societal environments, etc.). This may be a difference between regions, countries, or periods of history. According to the current, local, set of societal norms a book may be in conflict with them. Many of the criticisms of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” or “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” arise because the completely normal and acceptable language and behaviors of THAT period of time are no longer acceptable today.

     Does rewriting history really help anyone? Does pretending that life has always been as it ideally is today help anyone? This situation keeps arising — and not just for books and movies — but legal and historical cases where today’s standards are expected to have been held by the people of yesterday or some other locale.

     A fourth major category is simply that we don’t like the way the author thinks or the things that they put into print or a movie. They don’t have the same political, religious, moral, environmental, societal, scientific, or whatever viewpoint as someone else. True, and this is yet another case where parents should be INVOLVED with their children and what they are reading and watching and listening to. We have raised children to become adults who are unable to think about subjects, to discuss subjects, to research subjects. Is forcing children to NOT learn such skills really beneficial? Does society benefit from its citizens unable to discern reality from fantasy, facts from fiction, truths from lies?

     There are some books that slip past our hardworking librarians and should not be easily accessible by children. In such cases, all should know exactly what and why something is not appropriate. In other cases, the material may not be enjoyable or positive-in-viewpoint but still reflects something that is real. In such cases, the problem is primarily that the parents are not taking the time and energy to work with their children so that all understand what is going on and the effects of the situations on everyday interactions.

“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.” — Voltaire

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