No Loss, No Gloss

We've all heard the saying, "No pain, no gain." I would like to introduce a new saying:

No Loss, No Gloss

When I first tell people this, I can always count on a look of confusion on their faces. Let's break it down.

Think of a polished stone. It's shiny, beautiful. But it didn't emerge from nature that way. It started as a rough stone with jagged edges, most likely broken from a larger stone. It ended up in a stream or river and was repeatedly pounded by and against other rocks in the current. One by one, each jagged edge was broken off, resulting in a smoother and rounder surface. Then it was immersed in sand, and the shifting currents over seasons refined the surface.

What did it take to turn an ugly stone into a refined river rock? Loss. Loss of all of the rough edges.

What do you need to lose to improve your gloss?

"I don't need to lose anything! I can simply add a layer of cement or epoxy to the surface to become smooth. I can just cover my rough surface." 

But these facades will chip and fade over time. The smooth surface needs to be continuous to the core. So I ask again:

What do you need to lose to improve your gloss?

- Maybe it's a small yet annoying habit. 

- Maybe it's baggage you've been carrying around since childhood. 

- Maybe it's an outdated way of thinking about the world.  

You know best. You're loved ones also know too, if you dare ask them.

Sometimes we focus too much on "what more do I need?" and not enough on "what do I need to lose?"

No Loss, No Gloss

Everything is a Red Herring

Everything is a red herring...almost. A red herring is most likely a true statement, but it distracts from what's truly important. Here are some examples:

Federal Deficit and Debt

The out-of-control Federal spending is leading us to a fiscal crisis. I recently posted about D.O.G.E in response to red herrings related to the department. These red herrings point to specific examples of cuts that will cause harm. Still, none of them address the real problem: the interest payments on our debt are already more than our defense spending, which will soon be our country's biggest expense item, surpassing both Social Security and Healthcare spending. I've written about this for over 15 years here, here, here, and here.

Cyberwarfare and Political Polarization

We are under attack. Cyberwarfare is conducted against the U.S. by Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and others. These attacks are well documented in "This Is How They Tell Me The World Ends: The cyber weapons arm race" by Nicole Perlroth, and "Sandworm" by Andy Greenberg. Our enemies' goal is to create chaos in the U.S., and they are succeeding. I've written about the polarization in the U.S.  here and here. Most of the political polarization is just intentionally induced red herrings.

Environmental Sustainability

The discussions around Global Warming or "Anthropogenic Climate Change" have resulted in a red herring food fight. The problem is that the activists are blatantly manipulative, causing the skeptics to reject any scientific basis. I've participated in this here, here, here, here, and here. I recommend you read this one: Global Warming: Here's a better story.

The real problem is governmental policies that depend on and drive growth. Our Earth can't sustain unlimited growth, and for 99.9999% of us, there's nowhere else to go. For additional insights, read "Prosperity without Growth" by Tim Jackson and "Doughnut Economics" by Kate Raworth.

From ChatGPT:

🔵 Red Herrings from Climate Change Advocates

1. "The world will end in X years"
   → Overstating urgency with doomsday timelines can discredit valid concerns and scientific models.
   Red herring: Shifts focus from actionable mitigation to fear-based speculation.

2. "Anyone who questions anything is a denier"
   → Not all critiques are denial; some are about policy, economics, or priorities.
   Red herring: Avoids engaging with legitimate nuances.

3. "It's all the fault of big oil"
   → While fossil fuel companies play a major role, blaming them exclusively avoids discussing individual or governmental responsibility.
   Red herring: Oversimplifies a complex, systemic issue.

4. "We must act now, regardless of cost"
   → Urgency is real, but ignoring economic trade-offs can alienate support.
   Red herring: Sidesteps cost-benefit or equity discussions.

---

🔴 Red Herrings from Climate Change Skeptics

1. "The climate has always changed"
   → True, but irrelevant to the current rate, causes, and human contributions.
   Red herring: Distracts from the core issue of anthropogenic climate change.

2. "It was really cold last week"
   → Weather ≠ climate.
   Red herring: Uses short-term data to undermine long-term trends.

3. "Scientists used to warn about global cooling"
   → A fringe hypothesis in the 1970s, not a serious consensus.
   Red herring: Undermines current science by misrepresenting past uncertainty.

4. "Environmentalists are hypocrites who fly in jets"
   → Even if true, it doesn't disprove the reality of climate change.
   Red herring: Attacks the messenger, not the message.

Nonviolent Eating: Relax Your Eating for Better Health

TL/DR;

• I used the Dexcom Stelo "Continuous Glucose Monitor" or CGM.
• I confirmed the same lessons from previous experiment. My Experiment Results
• Foods high with grains or processed sugars cause blood glucose levels to rise
• Walking after eating helped to bring levels into acceptable ranges
• Stress can cause levels to rise more (even with identical foods).
• New insight:
• Nonviolent eating (I made this term up), or mindful eating in a relaxed, non-rushed manner can help reduce blood glucose spikes

Six years ago I did an experiment with taking periodic blood glucose  measurements after eating. It took hundreds of finger pricks.

Luckily, Dexcom now has a non-prescription, over-the-counter, continuous blood glucose monitor which provides readings every 5 minutes. I won't review all of the data because it basically confirmed what I discovered with my previous experiment.

Tuxedo Cake

The first surprise was on Memorial Day (May 26, 2025). We had my daughter and her family over. It was a relaxing, enjoyable day with swimming and ping-pong. At 12:45 PM, we had hamburgers, watermelon, etc. Then at 2:52 PM, we broke out the Tuxedo Cake from Costco. I ate a slice, then another, and then had a few more smaller pieces. I thought to myself, "This is really going to spike my blood sugar!"

Costco Tuxedo Cake

I went back to playing ping-pong with my grandson and then checked my levels later in the Stelo app. The green circle in the image marks the time when I ate the cake. My blood sugar never spiked (highest was 118 mg/dL an hour later). I figured it was being active (playing ping-pong) that kept it low. 

Blood Glucose After Eating Tuxedo Cake

Oatmeal

These next measurements were for times I ate oatmeal for breakfast. The only thing I add is raisins, roasted almonds, and sea salt. The captions describe the differences for three days.

Instant Oatmeal

Whole Oats, Walk after

Relaxed Eating (Whole Oats, no walk)

The second measurement I went on a walk just as it was spiking, bringing down my levels. The last measurement (June 5, 2025), I decided to actually take a break to focus on eating. I put on music from a relaxing playlist and I didn't do any work. 

I only discovered this relaxed eating the last few days that I had left on the sensor, but I applied the approach at every meal with noticeable reductions in blood glucose levels.

Nonviolent Eating

The way I think of it is as a hunter-gatherer out on the savanna. You're picking nuts and berries and eating as you go. You are very alert to any dangers, so you throw the food quickly in your mouth and munch it down quickly. You're telling your body "hey, I may need this to run away from a lion, so convert it to ready energy." This is "violent" eating, because you are in fear of violence while eating.

You bring some of the food back to your dwelling and the hunters just got back with a kill. You all sit, relaxed in the safety of your group and eat a relaxing meal. This is "nonviolent" eating, since you are not in fear of violence while eating. 

The goal is to create a mindful situation for your eating, where you aren't binging or rushing. You calm your mind and focus only on eating. You aren't thinking ahead to the next task or problem.

Stuck in Traffic: A Chance Encounter in the Second Dimension of Time

Yesterday I drove an hour away to my cousin's funeral. This post is about my drive home and its connection to my previous post on the Four Dimensions of Time.

The second dimension relates to the cumulative time spent with each person, object, or action on our main journey through the first dimension of time. The more time we spend, the deeper our relationship can become, the more adept we can be at a skill, and so on.

There were two accidents on my way home, which turned a one-hour drive into a three-hour drive. Luckily, I was in my new EV, which can be a very relaxing experience if you aren't in a rush to get somewhere. I had plenty of content on my phone to listen to. At first, I felt myself get angry at the people passing on the shoulder or sneaking into the merging lane to get ahead. But I reminded myself that I didn't need to hurry. 

At the first accident, I happened to glance over at a young woman sitting on the ground, leaning against the white cement barrier. She was being attended to by an emergency medical technician (EMT). I only saw her for a second or two. In the second dimension of time, she is insignificant.

Later that night, as I lay pondering the day, I thought about how much of an inconvenience the accident had been for her. For me, it made me slow down. For her, whatever she had planned for the day was interrupted. She may have a lasting impact from any injuries she might have sustained.

We never know how a brief encounter with a stranger may impact them. Not that we have any responsibility to make an impact. We play a bigger role in life than we can ever realize.

Putting the Patient before the Politics

 Imagine you have a loved one who has been diagnosed with cancer. The doctor's prognosis gives a 50/50 chance of survival from treatment. The thought of losing this person to cancer is most troubling. The doctor devises a treatment plan, and your loved one starts treatment. This is an uncertain time, so you provide as much support as you can.

Then you discover that the doctor has politics you vehemently disagree with. Unfortunately, you are too far along with the treatment plan to change doctors. Still, their politics! How can someone so smart be so dumb about politics? How can they have these opinions? Of course, the doctor doesn't share his politics during medical visits.

But the thought of this person succeeding drives you crazy. Wouldn't this just embolden them in their stupid political beliefs? You find yourself secretly hoping they will fail—that will teach them!

You take advantage of every misstep or setback during treatment. "You're not so smart after all, are you, Doctor?" you say with a snarky tone. Your dying loved one looks at you incredulously. "He needs to realize that he's not perfect! You know, he's not as smart as he thinks."   

Of course, this scenario is as ridiculous as this comedy sketch from College Humor.

If the video doesn't work for you, the scene shows scientists explaining to a general about an asteroid coming towards Earth for an extinction-level event. They are proposing launching missiles to stop it, when the general says, "Just Let The World Die."

But there is a sick patient. The United States.

Government Accountability Office reports $200 to $500 billion in fraud annually. That's from criminals in Russia, China, and elsewhere stealing from the U.S.

There's an ongoing obesity epidemic in the U.S.

The people in charge have only recently brought these problems, or "cancers," to our national attention and are trying to do something about them. But it seems the response is political. If we care about these problems, we should all rally together to address them.

The Missing Middle: Our Political Blind Spot

 I try to keep an open mind and critically examine information. When I hear arguments from the Right or Left, I find elements of truth in both. But reconciling the contradictions between them can be difficult. Then I was analyzing some data at work (unrelated) and came up with a way to piece both sides together. I call it "The Missing Middle."

In my experience, data can be overwhelming for many people, so to make this post accessible to more people, I'm going to keep it as simple and relevant as possible.

We are all familiar with the Bell Curve, which helps teachers assign grades in class. The problem with using it in education is that it identifies one side as good and the other side as bad. The general "Normal Distribution" curve used in science and medicine recognizes the middle as "normal" or acceptable, and the "tails" on either side as unacceptable. For example, blood pressure that's too high or too low is cause for concern.

I purposely created this example with "red" and "blue" to represent the Right and Left viewpoints, where I think most political discussions occur today. Just like blood pressure, it makes sense to raise alarms when either party drifts too far from the middle.

The problem is when either side treats every action of the opposing side as alarming. If a person is criticized for everything they do, they will stop listening to criticism.

The following are some current examples.

Immigration

Recently, the Right has made immigration an issue with threats to deport millions of immigrants. They criticize the previous administration for allowing millions to cross our borders and overwhelm our country. Over 260 alleged gang members were deported. Among those was a man who was mistakenly identified as a gang member. Critics argued that these deportees deserved "due process" - a fair hearing before removal. 

The Missing Middle

Of the 260 people, about 10-20 were convicted violent criminals (e.g. rape, murder). The government had been attempting to deport these people, but the cases were caught up in court. What's missing is a working immigration policy and more efficiency in providing "due process."

Government Excess

The Right has been attempting to rein in government excess, while the left points to critical programs that may be cut. I've heard the argument against D.O.G.E. that many government agencies already exist to do this work (Government Accountability Office (GAO), Office of Inspector General (OIG), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), etc.). 

The Missing Middle

While the current government auditing arms have already identified many areas for improvement, they aren't empowered to take action, and those empowered aren't required to listen to their counsel. It would be better if both sides figured out a way to leverage this missing middle.

Climate Change

The Left has been sounding the alarms for the consequences of climate change and trying to enact policies to reverse the increase in greenhouse gases. The Right mostly denies this and prioritizes human prosperity over planet health.

The Missing Middle

While humans have caused an increase in greenhouse gases, which has heated the planet, the planet has been warming up since the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850 AD). So even if we could revert to conditions before the Industrial Age, the glaciers would still melt, and the seas would still rise. While some habitats are stressed by the changes, others thrive from increased CO2 and warmer temperatures.

More than 200 million people rely on the fresh water from the Indus River, which is glacier runoff. Scientists project a significant decrease in water by 2050. Without anthropogenic climate change, this devastation would only have been delayed.

The Right needs to acknowledge the coming changes and Left could be less alarmist. We should all work together to adapt to any unavoidable changes to our world and do our best to prevent what we can.

Conclusion

Focusing on the extremes of the normal distribution leads to polarization and unproductive discourse. It also distracts from much of the good that exists in the middle. We need to keep pointing out when either side strays too far, but we need to do it in the spirit of working together for the general good of the country. 

A Journey Through Four Dimensions of Time

This post is a journey through time to illustrate how one might self-reflect on the passage of time. We've all experienced "time dilation", where time seems to pass faster or slower than usual, but the following story illustrates extra dimensions of time.

Sequential Time - The First Dimension

I recently went hiking with my friend Jonathan and his son Isaac. They met me at my house and I offered to drive to the trailhead in my new car. Upon arrival, I led the way, having done the hike many times. I suggested we take a slight detour on a more scenic route. The 6-mile loop and 1,122 feet elevation gain led us across a winding dirt and rock trail. At a saddle point between two peaks, the view opened up to the valley below, rolling hills, and cities in the distance. We rested a few minutes for photos and to catch our breath. At the peak, we had a 360-degree breathtaking view. I ate mixed nuts while Jonathan and Isaac ate from their prepared lunches: a sandwich, dried fruit, and other snacks. We returned to my car and drove home. We had a nice time visiting on every leg of the journey.

Cumulative Time - The Second Dimension

In the sequential flow of time, we can circle back and spend more time with people, at places, or doing things. This is the second dimension of time: how much time we accumulate with a thing. 

I've known Jonathan for about five years, and we've spent about 100 hours together. We've had many conversations and experiences together.

Isaac recently finished school, and one of the purposes of this hike was to discuss career opportunities. I only met Isaac once before, and our conversation was brief.

I've made this hike 20 or 30 times before, while this was their first time. I was familiar with each section.

I was pleased to find the hike easy this time. My recent physical activity seems to have helped my conditioning.

Lesson:

Pay attention to the cumulative time you spend, and ensure that you spend enough time on what matters most to you.

Sub-Experience - The Third Dimension

Some complicated processes and activities are below our awareness and are only peripherally observed.

As we walked, our muscles demanded more energy, so our metabolism kicked in, and heart and breathing rates increased and intensified. As this happened, our bodies grew new capillaries, strengthened muscle fibers, and improved neuroplasticity.

Some of the dust we kicked up we breathed in with our nasal system filtering most of it. 

The plants at the side of the trail were invisibly extracting nutrients from the ground and using the sun for photosynthesis.

Our families and friends were back home living their lives. Strangers were going about their lives.

Lesson:

Be aware of how much happens outside of your awareness. Use subtle clues (like increased heart rate or faster breathing) to inform you.

Super-Experience - The Fourth Dimension

Some complicated processes and activities move so slowly that we don't observe any change.

This week, a 5.2-magnitude earthquake occurred nearby, giving us all a nice jolt for about 10-20 seconds. It caused an estimated 1 to 2 cm of displacement (0.4 to 0.8 inches). The mountain we hiked formed millions of years ago from volcanic and similar tectonic activity. All that we observed on our hike was a screenshot with giant boulders, rock outcroppings, and bedrock in dry streambeds. At the top of the peak, we looked out over rolling hills. I've always wished I could see a time-lapse video of the formation of mountains.

Lesson:

It's no surprise that many people consider spending time in nature a spiritual experience. We should recognize with awe the super-experiences around us: the sun, moon, stars, oceans, lakes, rivers, and mountains.

 

The Sweet Spot: Where Left and Right Can Rally Together

TL/DR

• A tennis racket has a "sweet spot," the best place to hit the ball.
• The racket also has a "dead zone" that results in poorly hit balls.
• Different types of governments are identified as either in the "sweet spot" or "dead zone". 
• Both U.S. parties are in the "sweet spot".
• Like a married couple who must work together for the greater good.
• Trump may be creeping away to the "dead zone", but we still have many institutions to check his power (not the main point of this post, but worth acknowledging).

The Metaphor

If you have ever played racquet sports (or Pickleball), you should be familiar with "the sweet spot": the area in the center of the hitting surface that results in a harmonious, controlled, powerful hit of the ball. 

You should also be familiar with the "Dead Zone," or area outside the sweet spot, which results in a jarring vibration and the ball going off into undesirable places.

Government Sweet Spot

What would be the sweet spot for governments?

• Human rights and dignity
• Freedom of speech and association
• Free and fair elections
• Checks and balances on power
• Opportunity to provide for oneself (the "pursuit of happiness").

Many forms of governments provide this today:

• Liberal Democracy (Canada, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, Japan)
• Parliamentary Democracy (UK, Norway, Netherlands, India, Australia)
• Presidential Democracy (U.S., South Korea)
• Constitutional Monarchy (Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Thailand)
• Federal Republic (U.S., Switzerland, Germany, Mexico)
• Social Democracy (Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark)

You can find criticisms of these countries, but the people living there generally live well. 

Government Dead Zone

In the Dead Zone, there are no checks and balances; no meaningful elections; suppressed media and civil society; persecution of minorities and dissenters; and laws serve power, not justice.

Example forms of government:

• Totalitarianism
• The state seeks to control every aspect of public and private life
• Examples: North Korea
• Authoritarianism
• Power is held by a single ruler or a small elite, not constitutionally responsible to the public.
• Examples: Russia, Saudi Arabia, China
• Military Dictatorships
• The military controls the government, often through a coup.
• Examples: Myanmar, Egypt
• Theocracies
• Religious leaders or laws dominate governance
• Examples: Iran, Afghanistan
• Fascism
• Uses fear, force, and blind loyalty.
• Examples: Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain

Democrats and Republicans

What about the Left and Right in the United States? Both are constrained by our Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights and checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Both support freedom. Both support free and fair elections.

Neither party is putting us at risk of becoming North Korea, Russia, Iran, or Nazi Germany. It may "feel" like there is a threat of bad things happening, but people have been warning about the dire consequences of the current government for decades. Yet somehow, the U.S. has remained in the sweet spot.

How can you tell if a country is in the sweet spot? More people try to get into it than try to leave it.

I appreciate anyone willing to enter public service. It's a hard job—a really hard job...a nearly impossible job. And we humans aren't as clever as we'd like to think we are. We constantly make mistakes. We build ridiculous weapons - and then we use them. We invade and intervene when we shouldn't. We don't do things when we should.

I think of Democrats and Republicans like a married couple. One spouse decides to discipline the kids a certain way. The other spouse thinks, "Oh, okay, we're doing it that way? I'm onboard." Then they figure out how to make it work. What a married couple should never do is:

• Criticize their partner for the exact same behavior that they do.
• Undermine anything their partner is trying to do in the spirit of helping the family.
• Scare the children with exaggerated criticism about their partner.
• Behave recklessly (out of control spending or other behavior).

What happens when partners don't work together? 

Trump

To be more intellectually honest, I had to add this section. I researched how Trump may or may not be fascist. Here are the findings:

✅ Fascist-Like Traits Seen in Trumpism:

• Cult of personality – Loyalty to the leader above party, law, or institutions.

• Attacks on democratic institutions – Undermining trust in elections, courts, and the press (there are examples of him both complying and not complying with court decisions)

• Use of propaganda – Repetition of false claims as political tools (e.g. the "stolen election")

• Scapegoating minorities and immigrants – A hallmark of fascist movements

• Violent or authoritarian rhetoric – Praising dictators, calling for retribution against opponents

• Incitement or tolerance of political violence – Most notably, the events of January 6

---

❌ Why Some Say It's Not Technically Fascism:

• No one-party state – The U.S. still has competitive elections and multiple parties  (e.g. Senator Cory Booker wasn't thrown in jail for his record 24-hour filibuster. Try that in any of the Dead Zone countries). 

• Independent institutions remain – Courts, press, and some law enforcement have pushed back.

• No centralized control of the economy or media

• Fascism is a fully realized system, not just a style of politics

An Honest Look At Tariffs

Let's try examining tariffs in an attempt to decouple the idea from the current political polarization. I'll use a similar approach to examining minimum wage in my post Intellectual Vision.

Tariffs are a tax on goods or services from another country. A tariff schedule includes a detailed list of products along with tariff rates (% of value and/or a specific amount) and country of origin. 

Raising Tariffs

If a country raises tariffs, the importer (not exporter) pays the fees. The importer can pay the fees out of profits or pass the costs onto customers. The customers may just agree to pay the extra costs or may decided not to buy the product. If they don't buy the product, they may be able to find another equivalent alternative. If they can find another alternative, it will most likely cost more than or not be the ideal fit of the import. If the alternative product is produced domestically, then these businesses can benefit from the additional demand and potentially increase production. Since this demand is essentially incentivized by the tariffs, the business is not experiencing competituve pressure to innovate or cut costs, potentially resulting in higher costs than necessary.

If the customers can't find an equivalent alternative, they will have to find a product that doesn't meet the same needs or may have to make due without the product. 

The fees paid by the importer are collected by the government. These fees can be used by the government for productive manipulation of the economy, for example, by lowering taxes on consumers, offsetting the increased costs. These fees can also be used for non-productive applications, such as paying for excess government spending or special programs. In this case, the customer of the tariffed product ends up subsidizing the government program.

With complicated global supply chains, raising tariffs can end up hurting domestic producers that rely on foreign goods to make their products. Raising tariffs can have hidden costs such as creating an extra burden on businesses to adapt to changing rules.

Lowering Tariffs

After WWII, the U.S. lowered tariffs to promote global trade and economic recovery to help with post-war reconstruction.

If tariffs are lowered, a greater variety and quality of products can be found by consumers. Prices typically drop and global competition forces all suppliers to become more efficient. Foreign products may harm domestic suppliers if they can compete with cheaper foreign imports (due to cheaper labor or less regulation). Some domestic producers may benefit if they can by cheaper foreign parts for their products. If companies become dependent on foreign parts, this could result in supply chain disruptions, for example during a pandemic or war. If a domestic product is considered nationally strategic (e.g. defense, semiconductors), then lowering tariffs can put the national interests at risk.

With lower tariffs, a foreign government may reciprocate with lower tariffs. If they do, this may open new foreign markets for domestic producers. 

An example of this is NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement), where lower tariffs between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada resulted in generally lower prices on imports from the other countries, however many small Mexican corn farmers were put out of business as they couldn't compete with the large U.S. subsidized corn farms.

These last two examples bring up the issue of unfair trade practices, where a government can subsidize a product, then flood a foreign market with cheaper goods to destroy local industries. This can result in foreign monopolies taking over. This is the reasoning for high tariffs on many Chinese products.

Foreign governments may instead keep their tariffs high, creating an unfair trade balance. 

Additional Thoughts

Intellectual Humility - I am not an expert on the intracies of tariffs.

Intellectual Curiousity - I am curious enough to investigate the nuances of tariffs.

Intellectual Honesty - I am open to the truth about tariffs, even when it makes me uncomfortable.

Intellectual Access - I recommend going to objective sources of information and avoid politically motivated sources.

Intellectual Prudence - I have attempted to critically evaluate the pros and cons of tariffs and avoid sensationalism (though I may have oversimplified this whole idea of tariffs with this post).

Intellectual Tolerance - I haven't taken political or nation sides, recognizing the consequences on all parties.

Avoid Persuasion, Seek Understanding - I have tried to create a shared pool of understanding and not persuade you to take one position or the other.

Promote Empathy and Compassion - I recognize that their are winners in losers in the current system and in currently proposed changes, whether or not either are optimal. 

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_United_States

The Absurdity of Ideology

 

An ideological vision is more than a belief in a principle. It is the belief that that that principle is crucial or overriding, so that other principles or even empirical facts must give way when in conflict with it.

 -Thomas Sowell, "Knowledge and Decisions"

Analogy

Imagine that you are young and considering a future career. Your research leads you to Accounting. You find the premier accounting school, apply, and are elated when accepted into the program. At orientation, a senior classmate validates your decision with the following speech:

"Accounting is the most important career. You might ask how can that be? How about a brain surgeon? But where does a brain surgeon perform his best work? In a state-of-the-art operating room, in a hospital. It took money, budgets, and planning to pay for this facility. And who did that? Accountants. Where did that surgeon learn his skills? At a university. How did that place of learning come to exist and continue? Accountants. If you think about anything good in the world, it took Accountants to make it happen."

You're young and excited to be part of this critical community. The department has social events, study groups, and symposiums. With every encounter of your classmates, you hear testimonials of the superiority of accounting. You are unknowingly being indoctrinated. 

You throw yourself into your schoolwork but must take unrelated general education courses. You complain: "This is a distraction from my goal of being a great accountant!" You take a class on a whim that sounds interesting and find you enjoy it more than accounting. You spend extra hours on the coursework and shoot to the top of your class. It's easy...and fun! Your professor takes notice of you and invites you to work with him. You continue with sequential courses and are forced into a challenging situation. Do you change your major? You decide to follow your passion and change your major. You are shunned by the accounting students, but find a new group to associate with. You graduate and land an amazing job. Every day, you can't believe you are getting paid to do what you love.

Still, early indoctrination in accounting makes you doubt your decision. Rationally, you know you did the right thing, but deep down, you question your decision to leave Accounting.

Reality

The above analogy is meant to be a safe analogy: something we can all point at and agree is unsound. But how is this different than what, for example, people think of as the solution to world peace? 

The solution to world peace is Democracy|Mutually Assured Destruction|the UN|Nonviolence |Technology|AI|Social Equality|God|Love.

Each of these "ideas" is an incomplete understanding of reality. Yet, the ideologically inclined person grabs onto an idea that feels good and vehemently argues in favor of his or her idea. In my post, Intellectual Vision: Four Truths and Eightfold Path, I claim that while there is an absolute, objective reality that humans cannot know completely. 

Now, let's make this personal. Identify the ideology most important to you. Notice how you feel when you replace "accounting" in the analogy with your ideology. How do you feel now?

Chase Hughes, a leading behavior expert, said:

... if you can't see anything wrong with the side you agree with, and you can't see anything right with the side that you disagree with, you have been manipulated.

Why the title? "The Absurdity of Ideology." Ignoring empirical facts and a diversity of viewpoints is absurd. Our survival on this planet is due to continual adaptation. How many of the current major conflicts in the world are due to conflicting ideologies?

Why I Don't Think the End is Near

Many of my younger friends have shared with me their pessimism and grim outlook for the future. I then share my optimism, which earns the reply "How can I ignore all the frightening news?" This is what I tell them.

TL/DR;

The news media has been sharing the worst possible outcomes for many crises during my lifetime: The Cold War, Nuclear Weapons, Acid Rain, Skylab falling, the Energy Crisis, the Ozone Hole, Y2K, and the election of every president that I can remember. I have concluded that everyone is poor at predicting the future, especially when they present the worst case scenario. I decided to make the most of the present and ignore the noise.

The Cold War and Nuclear War

My entire upbringing we were under the threat of communism with the potential for nuclear winter and the extinction of the human species. Ronald Reagan called the USSR the "Evil Empire", movies showed the Soviets invading the U.S. 

Resolution: 

In 1989, the unthinkable happened when the Berlin Wall came down. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. Nuclear Disarmament treaties significantly reduced the world's stockpiles of atomic weapons. While there is still a nuclear threat, the fear mongering has decreased. (By the way, I highly recommend the Netflix documentary "Turning Point: the Bomb and the Cold War."

Acid Rain and Smog Days

During the 1970s and 1980s, pollution in the air would turn the rain to acid, ruining national monuments, killing wildlife in our streams and rivers, and ruining lakes and forests. The pollution was also causing respiratory problems. The nightly news announced the threat of acid rain in ominous tones. I remember as a child having "Smog Days" at school when the air quality was too poor to allow us to go out at recess and play. 

Resolution: 

The Clean Air Act was amended, and the Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution created an international agreement that resulted in improvements. While it is still a problem in some countries with potential long-term environmental impact, we don't hear much about it.

Sky Lab Re-Entry

In 1979, the United States' first space station re-entered the Earth's atmosphere. NASA couldn't predict where it would fall, raising concerns that it could kill millions of people. 

Resolution:

It fell on parts of the Indian Ocean and Australia and didn't kill anyone.

The Energy Crisis

In 1973, OPEC had an Oil embargo against the U.S. and its allies. This resulted in a recession and high inflation. Gas was rationed resulting in long lines at the pump and the federal government imposing a national 55 MPH speed limit (Have you heard the song "I Can't Drive 55" by Sammy Hagar? I got a few speeding tickets during this period).  

Resolution: 

The U.S. adopted efficiency standards and the economy returned to normal (I won't list the reasons here.)

The Ozone Hole

In the 1980's, the big scare was the Ozone Hole. The concern was that it would keep getting bigger, increasing our risk of cancer, cataracts, and environmental damage.

Resolution: 

Montreal Protocol (1987) banned CFCs, with ozone hole recovery trends observed.

Y2K

In 1999, there was a fear that our infrastructure would collapse due to the Y2K bug. The year 2000 came with no significant problems.

Honorable Mentions

I didn't include these as they are too rife with controversy.

• COVID-19
• Gay Marriage
• Climate Change
• Artificial Intelligence

Fears about U.S. Presidents (that I remember)

Jimmy Carter was considered an outsider and weak on foreign affairs. He gave us economic struggles (inflation, gas shortages), the Iran hostage crisis, and perceived weak leadership.

Ronald Reagan was too old (69 at inauguration), a former actor, had extreme right-wing policies, and increased the risk of nuclear war. His trickle-down economics would hurt the poor, and he was marred by the Iran-Contra scandal.

George H. W. Bush was just Reagan 2.0.

Bill Clinton was too young and inexperienced, a country baffoon, a womanizer, and a draft dodger. He was scandalous (Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky). He was the only president on this list to balance the federal budget and start to pay off the debt. Way to go, Bill!

George W. Bush wasn't intelligent enough, was elected under controversy (2000 recount), and gave us the forever wars (Iraq War under false pretences) and the economic collapse (2008 recession).

Barack Obama was inexperienced, secretly a radical, and people questioned his birthplace and religion. He pushed for government overreach (Obamacare). Racial tensions increased.

Donald Trump 1.0 had no political experience, was reckless, had an unfit temperament, and authoritarian tendencies. In office, he was divisive, attacked institutions, mishandled COVID-19, and resisted the election results.

Joe Biden was considered too old, cognitively declining, a weak leader. He caused inflation, a border crisis, and a botched Afghanistan withdrawal.

Donald Trump 2.0 - Concerned that he would be another Hitler and Stalin and bring the world order to an end. 

This Isn't New

Predictions of Doomsday have been going on for a long time.

From Benjamin Franklin

The Bible (too many instances to quote here).

Conclusion

I've become numb to the overhyped fearmongering and dire predictions in the media. I have tried unsuccessfully to predict the future and realize that I am not only bad at it, but so is everyone else.

I decided to make the most of the present and wait a few years to see if other's predictions actually pan out.

Biography

"The Culture of Fear" by Barry Glassner.

"Hate, Inc." by Matt Taibbi.

An Honest Look at D.O.G.E

We need to take an honest look at the Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E), specifically:

1. The current state of the federal debt and deficit
2. The criticisms and successes of Elon Musk as the apparent force behind D.O.G.E.
3. Other options for fiscal responsibility.

A Debt Crisis

The U.S. Federal government has had many episodes of peaking debt in the last two centuries. Typically, these are due to war (the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Cold War, the War on Terrorism) or major financial crises (the Great Depression, 2008 Credit Crunch, COVID). For each of these, there is a precipitous drop in debt due to spending cuts, raising taxes, and economic growth. Except for our current 25-year run-up in debt.

For example, America experienced a massive economic boom after WWII since our infrastructure was unscathed, allowing us to be competitive worldwide.  

After the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, Bill Clinton, with bipartisan support from Congress, was able to balance the budget and start paying off the debt. They used tax increases and spending cuts. They also benefited from the tech boom of the late 1990s, which resulted in higher tax revenues. Unfortunately, they also used Social Security surpluses to offset deficits.

A good measure of debt is the ratio of debt to GDP, with debt typically rising 30% to 80% about pre-crisis levels.  The previous highest level was 119% at the height of WWII. The debt is now at about 122%. Twenty years of the war on terror, the financial crisis in 2008, COVID in 2020, all contributed to the debt, but the country also experienced steady growth during this time.

The Federal government spends $2 trillion more each year than it takes in. Half of that is used to pay the interest on our current $36 trillion debt. I recommend examining the US Debt Clock or reading my post If We Ran Our Households Like The Federal Government.

So why can't we just keep doing what we've been doing?

The risk is a "debt spiral". Printing money results in higher interest rates, which result in higher debt, requiring more money to be printed, etc. Additionally, higher debt-to-income ratios result in slower growth, which results in lower income. The classic example is Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic. While the U.S. economy has proven more resilient than the Weimar Republic, the current trend is unsustainable. We may "grow our way" out of this, but it would be more responsible to use all means possible to return to sustainability.

Is Elon Musk the guy who can fix this?

Surprisingly, the debt wasn't even raised during the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Elon Musk is the first to make the debt part of the national debate. It's worth taking a detailed look at Elon Musk, including the good and the bad. I'll start this investigation with the claim that Elon is a disruptor. Disruption can be both bad and good. Some of  the ways Elon achieves disruption that I would like to focus on are:

• First Principles Thinking - Break down complex problems into fundamental truths, ignoring conventional wisdom. For example, how much should this car or rocket part cost? Start with the cost of raw materials and the labor to convert them into the needed part.
• Long-Term Vision.
• Leverage Technology and Automation.
• Fail Fast, Fix Fast - take action quickly, and when you fail, learn from it. 
• Running Lean Organizations - "Delete any part or process you can. If it turns out you need it, add it back later." 

As you can imagine, these approaches result in much criticism, often well deserved.

Let's examine a few of his ventures for pros and cons across various industries:

• Banking (PayPal)
• Aerospace (SpaceX)
• Energy (SolarCity and Gigafactories)
• Automotive (Tesla)
• Social Media (Twitter/X)

PayPal

Good: Have you ever used PayPal or Venmo? Elon realized there wasn't a lot of innovation in the financial services sector and that money was low bandwidth (you didn't need a lot of infrastructure like banks or ATMs) (video). Moving money from one person to another via email was much faster and became a popular feature of their financial offerings.

Bad: Elon is criticized for his authoritarian management style, and his vision for a broader financial platform was too ambitious, which led to his ouster as CEO.

“Going from PayPal, I thought well, what are some of the other problems that are likely to most affect the future of humanity?” 

SpaceX

U.S. space travel was in a state of stagnation, marked by high costs and limited ambition. From 2011 to 2020, NASA paid Russia $70-$90 million per seat to ferry astronauts to the ISS on Soyuz rockets - a humiliating dependency. 

Good:  SpaceX significantly cut the cost of launching payloads into space with streamlined operations and reusable rockets. The result was the commercialization of space exploration and inspiring space industry growth.

Bad: Elon over-promises and under-delivers, setting highly ambitious, often missed timelines. SpaceX is known for its intense work culture, with employees working long hours to meet deadlines. Some have criticized the environmental impact of an increased number of rocket launches. Privatization of Space has also drawn criticism as the folly of Billionaires playing "astronaut".

SolarCity and Gigafactories

Elon Musk challenged utilities by pushing for decentralized power. Solar panels could capture the sun's energy and store it in batteries for later use.

Good: Musk's vision for a sustainable future encouraged broader investments in green energy. His focus on scale and efficiency accelerated technological improvements at his companies, SolarCity and Tesla Energy, helping advance clean, renewable energy that reduces carbon emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels. Homeowners and businesses can have more control over their energy consumption. 

Bad: SolarCity and Tesla Energy products have benefitted from government subsidies and incentives. SolarCity's business model included leasing options, sometimes leading to financial difficulties. Battery production and lithium mining have been linked to environmental concerns, such as mining pollution and waste disposal.

Tesla

Good: Tesla is also part of Musk's vision for a sustainable future. His leadership and innovation have led to the adoption of EVs worldwide, with Tesla representing about 2/3rds of the EVs in the U.S. Telsa cars are stylish, high-performance, high-tech, competitive alternatives to other cars. Ford CEO Jim Farley said they struggle to compete with Tesla due to the integrated software development and ability to rapidly update vehicle features and pricing through over-the-air updates, which traditional car manufacturers struggle with due to their complex legacy system and dealer networks (video short). Additionally, the Tesla supercharger network is unparalleled (they realized the infrastructure was required for EV adoption, so they built it). 

 

Bad: 

Once again, Elon is criticized for over-promising and under-delivering. He also has the same intense management style, which is high-pressure and demands long hours.  Tesla has faced regulatory scrutiny and legal challenges due to its aggressive business practices, product claims, and workplace issues.

In August 2021, Joe Biden held an Electric Vehicle summit at the White House to promote the transition to cleaner transportation and address climate change.  The Detroit's big three automakers were invited with President Biden highlighting GM's CEO Mary Barra, stating "I think she's one of the reasons we're here today". No one from Tesla was invited, and no recognition was given for Tesla's contributions. 

Twitter/X

Before Musk bought Twitter in October of 2022, the platform had several issues: frustrated users, investors, and even some employees. Growth had plateaued, innovations were minimal, and the company rarely turned a profit. The Twitter workforce was bloated. Content moderation was a mess with rampant bots and spam. With the release of the Twitter files, evidence showed inappropriate government influence in censorship, shadowbanning, and election interference.

Good: Elon emphasized his commitment to free speech and said he would be more open to diverse opinions and less prone to content moderation and censorship. His vision was to allow people to engage in open dialogue, fostering a marketplace of ideas without heavy-handed moderation. He made efforts to combat bots and fake accounts. He streamlined operations and adopted cost-cutting measures to make the platform more profitable. For example, he found that many employees were idle, that company-provided gourmet lunches were thrown in the trash, etc. He has explored using artificial intelligence to improve user experience and content moderation.

Bad: The first problem is that Elon didn't practice due diligence in his purchase and significantly overpaid for Twitter. Some believe that hate speech, misinformation, and harassment have become more prevalent. The uncertainty during the transition resulted in revenue decreases and advertisers leaving the platform.

D.O.G.E

Good: Elon is a proven efficiency expert with an outsider perspective. He has tech-driven innovation and attempts to promote public accountability by posting about inefficiencies on the X platform. He is acting fast, as opposed to the usual stalemate of government action.

Bad: Musk has massive conflicts of interest with many government agencies providing oversight of his various companies. His "fail fast, fix fast" style could destabilize the government and paralyze critical services. Musk lacks public administration expertise, where public trust is paramount. After the Chornobyl disaster, Mikhail Gorbachev said:

Everything that a top leader says in such situations has to be carefluly weighed and has to be very fully informed. So you always have to bear in mind that in such situations there is always a danger of panic. 

For example, Elon posted on X a list of the number of people in various age ranges in the Social Security database, showing many people over 120 years of age. To follow Gorabachev's advice, this should have included more information, such as how many of those people were actively receiving benefits and details on some of the outliers over 200 years old. Instead, there was a lot of confusion.

Only time will tell how much good or harm Musk will do in this role.

Who should fix the U.S. debt Crisis?

Recently, I was referred to the "Tangle" podcast and have enjoyed their balanced reporting. I eagerly listened to "The legal fight over DOGE's budget cuts." They present the Left's take, the Right's take, and then "My take". "My take" was presented by Ari Weitzman. I agree with his criticisms of the cutting being done by DOGE. 

He asked, "Why not leverage an existing agency - the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the Congressional Budget Office - to lead the charge?" I thought this was a good point, but then I thought, "Why aren't they already doing this? Why haven't they been sounding the alarms?"

In the Netflix documentary "Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War," there are several instances that the World has moments away from nuclear annihilation. Stanislav Petrov (at great risk) ignored a false alarm of U.S. incoming nuclear missiles, avoiding full-scale nuclear war. A Soviet overreaction to U.S. military games, Able Archer, in 1983, was de-escalated when Leonard Perroots recommended winding down the U.S. operations. Daniel Ellsberg said, 

"We see time and again that it's the individuals who have the courage to stand up and make a call, not the system that necessarily works." 

Remember that Daniel Ellsberg was the one who released the Pentagon Papers in 1971, revealing government deception regarding the Vietnam War.

Can we rely on our current system to resolve our budget crisis? Or do we need a brave individual? I don't know who should do it, but I'm glad it's part of the national conversation. Hopefully, we can be more honest about it.

Empathy and Compassion

People will be hurt no matter what is done or who does it. If the cost cutting results in loss of jobs, those jobs represent people with families, mortgages, and other living expenses. Cancelled projects may affect people in need with no other source of help. If taxes are raised, then that will be a burden on the taxpayers.

If nothing is done, our children and grandchildren will have to pay the bill in the future.

If nothing can be done (which is what I'm hearing a lot), then we are headed for economic collapse that will affect not only Americans but all of the world.

If Elon Musk and Pres. Trump are somehow able to restore financial solvency without creating hardship for anyone but criminals and fraudsters (a purely hypothetical result), then there will be people that have been personally hurt by either man who will most likely not see justice served.

If you find yourself in a position where you are safe from hardship, it's essential to recognize the hardship that others may face.

Musings on God

 Imagine all the amazing creations: the starry night, brilliant sunset, flowers, fruit on the vine, etc. It's easy to assume there is a craftsman who created harmonious beauty: the oceans evaporate, clouds form, the wind blows the clouds to land, the clouds drop rain on the plants, the plants grow flowers, the bees pollinate the flowers, the flowers turn into fruit, animals eat the fruit and spread the seed, bacteria and insects break down the animal's waste making fertilizer for the plants to grow.

We humans consider ourselves to be the most significant of creations. But let's look at how humans fit into these creations over space and time.

The craftsman (God) has been creating for billions of years, yet man has only been around for a fraction of that (0.002%). Imagine a craftsman who has produced countless works of art for 70 years, and then 9 hours ago, the craftsman created something new (man). How could you claim that this most recent creation was the most significant? Could tomorrow's creation (in 500,000 years) or next month's creation (in 15 million years) be superior? 

What about the vastness of space? God's work can be found all around the visible universe, billions of light-years away, with portions of the universe that exist beyond what we can see. A spectacular galaxy appears as nothing more than one of a billion bright dots in our night sky. It would be as if our hypothetical craftsman reproduced all of the works of art on the planet, miniaturized them, and placed them as the period at the end of this sentence. What's the point of that?  (no pun intended). If we are the most significant creation, and all of this was created for us, what's the point of so much beauty we can't see with the naked eye? Sure, we can be in awe at what our telescopes discover, but what about all humans who never saw more than a speck in the sky? Is it wasteful: the immensity of space and the fact that we could never reach any of it in a lifetime?

Humans are just a little figurine crafted 9 hours ago in the corner of an immense workshop.

But surely, the craftsman cares most about this creation. How often do people fall on their knees, pleading for help from the craftsman? How often do these cries go unanswered? Is God an interventionist being who is willing to step in and repair our situation? Surely, the millions of Jewish people who died during the Holocaust deserved an intervention. Surely, the millions of Hindus and Muslims who died from famine and violence before and after obtaining independence in India from the British deserved an intervention. Surely, the 40 to 80 million who died of starvation and persecution under Mao Zedong deserved an intervention. This list could continue for pages.

Maybe God isn't an interventionist. 

Maybe God is just a craftsman who created a beautiful world for us.