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.