Hope and Faith

I was just recalling a lunch time conversation I had with some friends back in the late summer of 2008. In this conversation, we were of course talking about the upcoming election. And, as I recall, one of my friends said something that seemed odd at the time; but it has stayed with me since then. They said "at least Obama will bring Hope to the people".

As I said, I did not give it much thought at the time. But, of late I have been reminded of this and other comments by other friends. I have seen a pattern emerge from all the various conversations and comments. And, I feel compelled to talk about this pattern. That said, I'm not really sure where to begin. My thoughts and memories are swirling around in my head right now, and I am looking for the thread to pull in order for all this to make sense. So, here goes.

What do you think of when you hear the word "Hope"?

Well, for me, Hope is something that goes with a situation, where the odds are against something good happening. Or, when something bad is happening and the odds of the situation being corrected are not good. To me, we need Hope when things look the worst, and we want (or need) to get beyond the situation that we are facing.

As a country, were we so bad off that we needed some kind of miracle? Why would we need Hope?

I think it is safe to say that there were a great number of people who were unhappy and/or disillusioned, and, that this was somehow attributed to our government. We then have to ask ourselves what is the root cause, if we want to understand the need for Hope; the need for Change.

Why were people unhappy and disillusioned? Well, if you have expectations that you will be rich (for example), and, you are not rich, you would probably be unhappy and maybe even disillusioned.

Aren't we a bit spoiled? Don't we in this country have so many more opportunities than those elsewhere? Shouldn't we be happy with and thankful for what we have? And, isn't it really greedy and selfish of us to be wanting more, given what we already have?

Moreover, haven't we been manipulated (see "Is the head dead yet" blog) into thinking that we are somehow being treated unfairly; because there are people who have more than we have? Haven't we been convinced that our neighbor has something we should also have? And, after all, who's fault is it if our neighbor has more than we have?

Now we are getting somewhere: it's the governments fault; at least in the minds of some people. And, it's the governments responsibility to make this right. This explains why we would put our Hope for Change into a single man.

Wow! What a brilliant campaign Obama ran! The media created the mindset, and the Obama campaign capitalized on this big time. If this does not send chills up and down your spine, you should read the "Masters or Servants" blog and the "Is the head dead yet" blog.

Are "we the people" so absolutely self centered (spoiled) that we can only think of ourselves (see "I Want" blog)? Seriously. Why are we so focused on what our neighbors have? Why aren't we focused on being thankful for what we have, instead of lusting after what our neighbors have?

This seems to me to be a root cause. And, the really sad thing is that this gives our "Masters" a way to manipulate us. All because we cannot get away from our envy. It's ironic really. People put their hope into a government that ultimately sees them as "Servants".

My hope is that people in this country will focus more on doing the right thing, and that people will be less envious and selfish. But, this is not something I expect (or hope) that the government will do. People have to make individual choices. I'm just hoping they make the right choices for the right reasons.

Why are people hoping for the government to do something? I think we have a second root cause here: the government is seen as the highest authority.

As Americans, we have a Constitution which spells out our God given Rights. These Rights are not given to us by the government. These rights are in fact to protect us from the government, and, ultimately from people who might use the government for their own purposes. These rights come from God, as "One Nation Under God". And, God is the highest authority.

Our money all indicates our collective "trust" in God. Yet, we put our hope and faith in one man? I can see now why some of the conservative talking heads make reference to Obama as a deity. I don't like this tactic, by the way. But, given the way the campaign was run, I can see the rationale for their position.

Do we really, as a nation, trust God? Well, if you read my "What are the odds?" blog, you will see that things are changing. And, I think this gives us the "why" for the question of why we would put our hope and faith into a single man or a government.

Based on the Rally (or Revival) in Washington D.C. Last summer, there are still those who have hope and faith. But, what about the future? I believe we are a very blessed nation, and that our trust in God is the reason for these blessings. My hope is that one day people will wake up to realize this fact.

Sent from my iPad

Is the head dead yet?

I don't know about you, but I have noticed a distinct difference (over the last decade) in the way "the press" presents information to "the people".

I was always taught that "the press" was supposed to be part of the checks and balances for a democratic system of government. Freedom of "the press" was envisioned as a means to keep the people of a democracy properly informed, so they can take action in the event their government starts to do things that are against the fundamental principles of their constitution. And, as such, "we the people" have (over time) developed a trust for "the press"; that they will keep us properly informed. In fact, I think the trust for "the press" is advocated in the earliest levels of public education.

I travel internationally for my job. And, from 2004 through 2009 I spent a considerable amount of time in Europe. I used to enjoy the different points of view I would get from the different media channels in Europe. I felt privledged and even enlightened to be exposed to such a diverse range of cultures. I began to consider myself a citizen of the world, rather than just an American citizen.

I can still remember the debates I had with my international friends over things like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, George Bush, and America's position as the hegemonic force in the world. I have to admit that some of their perceptions (or arguments) of American arrogance were beginning to gain ground with me.

Then, something happened. I can't put my finger on it precisely. But, I began to feel less enamored with the international media. I realized that things were being said that were simply not based on actual facts. I can still remember sitting in my hotel room watching one of the international media channels, and thinking to myself "are they seriously putting this dribble on television".

Then, it occurred to me: I was hearing "themed" messages. Messages within a message intended to plant impressions. And, the themes I was hearing were the themes I recognized from my discussions with my international friends. In fact, they were practically identical.

Of course, I went through the classic denial: why would the media want to manipulate the message? It just did not make sense. Then, it occurred to me that the media had been very effective in getting their message through to my friends, because my friends were parroting the message back to me and amongst themselves during our lunch time debates. And, it occurred to me that the media had been quite effective in shaping the perceptions of my friends.

Imagine: an organization you trust to give you accurate information is actually giving you a crafted message. So, why? Why would the media want to deviate from just giving the facts? Why would the media want to advocate a "position", by embedding messages within their reporting of the facts? Well, if the public trusts the media to keep them informed, then the public is likely to believe whatever the media says. And, if I wanted to manipulate or control public perception, what better way to do this; than via a media that is already trusted by the public at large.

Yes, I know that this is a classic conspiracy theory. But, before you stop reading, I'd like a chance to make my case. If you have been following my blogs, you know that I use a very logical approach to make my points. I'm not your classic conspiracy theorist - I'm an independent thinker. And, if you will allow me, I would like to share some of that independent thinking on this topic.

So, what would motivate a journalist in general, or the media at large to begin advocating specific themes? Have you read my "Masters or Servants" blog? In this blog, I talk about the psychology behind the elitist frame of mind. If you haven't read that blog, you really should (I'll save your place here for you).

Seriously, anyone out there that believes our current media personalities are humble servants of society? Well, maybe some of them are, but, what about the vast majority? What do you think motivates them to do their job each day? Money? Fame? The power of being able to shape the perception of millions (even billions) of people? Are our media personalities striving to be Masters or Servants?

For the purpose of proving our conspiracy theory, let's just say that we don't believe that the majority of today's media personalities are motivated by a sense of public service. And, I think it is safe to say that media companies are big businesses; which means they are likely motivated by money and power. Convinced yet?

What's your favorite football team? Basketball team? How dedicated are you as a fan? Do you watch every game on TV? Go to every game in person? Wear merchandise that advertises your loyalty to the team? Do you get into heated arguments about your team?

We all like to belong; it's part of the human psyche. And, we tend to manifest our need to belong in different ways. Some join gangs. Others join political parties. And, still others adopt a sports team.

We all need to belong. But, more importantly, we like for our memberships to be exclusive. And, even better, we like to be unique or elite within an elite organization. It's the rush of power, that only membership in an elite organization can deliver.

So, if I'm a member of a particular political party with a particular ideology, wouldn't I talk about my ideologies; much the same way I cheer for my favorite football team? Wouldn't I do what I could to help my party to gain influence; much the same way I wear clothing promoting my favorite team? In particular, wouldn't I want and strive for influence within my political party?

Who was it that said "I would not want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member"?

Have you noticed that our media personalities have become more "dramatic" in the way they present the news. They seem to particularly like to report on events where there's lots of human suffering; like the most recent tragedies in Japan.

I guess some of that is the public's fault, as we do like to slow down in traffic to see the carnage of an accident. But, the media seems to thrive on human tragedies - to the point were they will play the same clip over and over again, trying to come up with new ways to describe the visuals. And, of course, they have to be "the best", so they add a little drama to distinguish themselves from the other media personalities who are reporting the same story.

The entertainment factor in the news is becoming more prevalent. And, it would seem that the entertainers are not above using their fame to advocate their political positions. Personally, I miss the true journalists.

So, what do you think? Do we need to worry about journalists and a news media that are politically biased and/or motivated by money and power?

And, what about all the drama? I heard a song on the radio that inspired me to write this blog. The song asked: "is the head dead yet". I immediately thought about the current day media's lust for human tragedy, and their desire to dramatize everything.

I started to think about my experiences with my international friends, and I realized that the media is key to being able to manipulate public opinion. Thus, the media is a valuable resource for today's "Masters". If that does not convince you, I don't know what will.

Actually, I probably should mention how the media can manipulate public opinion. We humans have lots of fears. And, the media likes to exploit these fears. For example, we are so afraid of dying in a terrorist attack, "we the people" are willing to give up our liberties, and right to privacy, to gain some level of security. And, the media recently used these fears to advocate a position in support of the new virtual strip search machines we travelers now have to deal with every time we fly.

I might be unique, but I do not fear death. It gives me the ability to focus on what I am losing as a result of everyone else's fears. It also gives me the ability to be unemotional regarding the role the media is playing in the manipulation of public perception.

It seems to me that the media has become a tool for propaganda and entertainment. I miss the simple truth. And, I am really tired of all the drama.

Sent from my iPad

I want

I am writing this blog as I sit on a transatlantic flight. So, please forgive me if I use some metaphors that seem "testy". Each time I make this flight, I get to observe something new from one of my fellow passengers. And, in fact, this is why I am publishing this blog ahead of the two others that I have been working on for some time. Some things just bring out the worst in people. I am talking about selfishness.

What is selfishness? It's simply putting your wants above the wants or needs of another; even to the point of being rude or discourteous.

The last time I was on this flight, I was fortunate enough to get a bulk-head seat. This means that I got a seat in the front of the cabin. Imagine two aisles on the plane. And, imagine the seat on the left aisle of the middle section; as close to the front of the plane as possible. This particular seat was on the left side of the middle section. Now, on this particular plane, there's only one bathroom in this coach cabin; at the front of the aisle next to me. This is extremely convenient for the folks sitting on the same aisle. But, it is not so convenient or those who are sitting on the other aisle; basically half the plane's seats.

Let's role play. Imagine you are in my seat sleeping (as this is an overnight flight), when you are awakened by someone crawling across the space in front of you; literally trying to step over the feet and legs of everyone sitting in this section (three people). Do you get upset with the person, or do you simply move your legs to allow them to pass? Keep in mind that this person will need to return to their seat, once they are done in the bathroom. Now, let's reverse the roles. Imagine you are the person who needs to use the bathroom, and you realize that you need to walk all the way back to the next cabin in order to get to the bathroom. Should you crawl over the people to get to the bathroom? What's the "right" thing to do in this situation? Mind you: I am not just talking about the person doing the crawling.

While you are pondering this example, I would like to give you another.

Economies are made up of producers and consumers. Consumers get their goods and services from some form of market. Producers place their goods in the market, setting the price based on their cost to produce; plus some profit. So, based on this simple model, what do you think happens to the cost of goods produced by a producer, if that producer's labor costs go up? Well, either the producer's profit would have to drop. Or, the cost of the producer's goods would have to go up. For the sake of this argument, let's just assume that the free market will act to control the amount of profit a producer can put on the goods and services they provide to the market; I want to leave the topic of greed to another post. So, the focus here is on the impact rising labor costs have on consumer prices, and the root cause for the increasing labor costs.

Have you ever thought about the impact a raise in your salary would have on those who are consumers of the products and services you (or the company you work for) produce? Or, did you simply think about your self? Ever wonder where inflation comes from? Well, I admit this is a simplified model. And, I admit that this explanation does not take in to account supply and demand. But, the correlation between labor costs and consumer prices has to be obvious. Did you ever take the time to consider the impact a salary increase would have on the broader economy? It might be a bit euphoric, but, imagine if everyone's salary stayed fixed. Would you be willing to fix your salary, if it could result in stable prices? After all, aren't you a consumer as well as a producer?

Just in case you are wondering, I have the same seat on this flight as the last flight. So far two people have crawled over my feet to get to the bathroom. Come up with an answer yet?

So, is it selfish to take a salary increase, when you know this will likely have some kind of impact on consumer prices? It's a vicious cycle. Prices increase from inflation. This leads to necessary increases in salaries; in order to keep up with inflation. But, where does it end? It's a vicious cycle indeed. Wouldn't it be nice if instead of only thinking about ourselves, we could consider the greater good?

I've been following the battles over the unions. And, when I got on this flight, the parallels struck me and motivated me to write this blog.

Unions serve a purpose: to negotiate compensation for the labor force. The intention was good (as is most always the case). If unions where used as a checks and balances against greedy business owners or executives, I would not think twice about their role. But, unions have evolved into political machines; trading power for favors just like our political parties.

Who does the union really serve? It's members? Or, does the union provide political power to it's leaders, such that this political power can be used to manipulate our government representatives. If you've read my post on "Masters and Servants", you should be able to identify unions as yet another political organization, that is interested in maintaining their political influence.

I am seeing union members protesting because they are going to have reductions in their benefits, or, they are going to have to pay more for their benefits. Tell me, do these people think they are the only ones impacted by the state of our economy? Are these people so selfish that they don't care about the perpetual cycle we are in regarding compensation and prices?

Where, pray tell, should the money come from to pay for these benefits? I could understand, if employers where treating their employees poorly. But, is this really a case of employee abuse? Somehow, I don't think so. It looks to me like these union members are not thinking about the rest of us Americans. Isn't that the definition of selfishness?

Government employees have had unions for some time. And, these folks are per capita some of the best paid folks around. Automobile workers have been unionized for decades, and they are very well paid as well. Doesn't this indicate that we should endorse unions? After all, if we all join unions, we could all have nice big salaries. Then what? Who will be left to pay? The union today is being used to the exclusive benefit of their members, and to the potential deficit of everyone else. So, are unions the answer?

What happened to the auto industry in the last decade? Two out of three companies went bankrupt. Why do you think this is? Well, perhaps the price of cars has gotten out of reach of the average consumer. What do you think drove up car costs? Industry experts agree labor costs are the biggest factor in auto prices.

In fact, if the government had not stepped in, the auto industry would have been forced to make some serious changes. So, why did the government step in? Simple: they wanted to maintain their positions of power and authority. The unions helped the government folks stay in office, and the government bailed out the unions - er, uh - the auto industry out of bankruptcy. And, we the taxpayers get stuck with the bill. How is that not selfish?

Now let's look at government employee unions. Where are the checks and balances? If unions are protected by the government, and, the government is protected by the unions, where will we end up? Well, if government salaries keep increasing, then the cost of government will have to increase as well. Guess who pays when that happens?

So, whose interests are being served by unions? Is this really something for the greater good? Or, is this a "club" of people who are selfishly looking out for themselves.

Here's the saddest part: the number of people in this country, who are thinking "I want", is quickly outpacing the number of people who are looking out for the country at large. Instead of thinking about the country's future, these people can only think of themselves.

How long before there's no one left to pay the bills? After all, being selfish is about getting something for yourself - no matter the cost or who has to pay. Ask what you can do for your country; not what your country can do for you. We need to get our financial house in order. And, I for one think everyone needs to do their part.

I saw a poll that indicated people only want to balance the budget if the services they need are not touched. In other words, let someone else pay the price. "They want" to have their cake and eat it too. But what about very one else? I find this shocking and maybe even disgusting. Why can't we put an end to a government where we give entitlements to a group of people, in order to get something back from them - a vote. Not only is this a selfish way to run things, it will breed corruption and inequity.

If we cannot decide which special interest programs (entitlements) to cut, we should cut them all. And, if "we the people" don't start putting our "I want" attitudes in check, I'm not sure what America will look like a couple of generations from now. You think I am kidding, just take a look at other nations where the population has an "I want" attitude. This "I want" mentality is really the root of America's troubles.

Checkpoint: two more people have crawled over me since my last report.

I will be the first to admit that credit cards got my generation in trouble. When I was fresh out of college, I got my first credit card. And, I quickly became enslaved to my credit cards. It took me a while to figure out that my "I want" attitude was costing me dearly. But, I was young and stupid. And, I figured it did not matter, as long as I got what "I wanted".

I was lucky. I was able to curb my appetite for "stuff", and eventually I worked my way out from under a mountain of debt. Unlike the auto industry, I did not go crying to the government for help. I knew that I was the one who created the problem, and I knew that I was the one who needed to fix the problem. I bought less stuff, and worked more to pay off my credit card debt. I wish more Americans would do the same. Clearly, this latest financial crisis is proof to the contrary.

As I said earlier, America's "I want" attitude is a serious problem. Based on the polls, and my own observations of human behavior, I'm not optimistic. This is one time where I would really like to be wrong.

Sent from my iPad

Servants or Masters

Have you ever wondered how come we have Masters and Servants?

I think there are two ways to look at this. One can be a Servant by choice. And, one can be a Servant because they have no choice. Or, because they don't choose not to be a Servant; in other words they allow themselves to become a Servant as a result of inaction or not making a choice.

For me, I believe that when someone is elected into a position of authority over other people, they are choosing to act as a Servant to the people who elected them. In a perfect world, those who are elected into positions of authority would serve with humility. And, the elected individuals would keep in mind the trust that was bestowed on them by the people who elected them. That's in a perfect world.

Unfortunately, our world is far from perfect; simply because the people in this world are far from perfect. I'm not saying that everyone is evil or even bad. I think most people are good at heart, and I think most people want to do the right thing. But, we are still human. And, therefore, we still suffer from things like pride, jealousy and even greed. We all want what our neighbor has. In fact, many times we want to have something better than our neighbor. We are constantly comparing ourselves to our neighbor; and, even competing with them. It's the pride, greed and jealousy (among other things) that make this world far from perfect.

In a perfect world, a government of the people should in fact be Servants of the people. But, is this the case today? Do the people elected into public service today actually see themselves as Servants? Or, do they see themselves as Masters? Who is the Servant today, and who is the Master?

Can you imagine a Servant in the 14th century telling their king that they were going to take a bigger salary than the king? Can you imagine a worker in the 19th century telling their boss that they knew better how to spend their boss' money more efficiently? Think about this. Isn't this precisely what our elected officials are doing today? Of course, no one wants anarchy. And, of course, someone needs to work on behalf of the people - to make laws for the people. But, the examples I have given are not examples of elected officials making laws on behalf of the people they are supposed to be serving. These are examples of our elected officials using their positions for their own gain; establishing themselves as superior to the people who elected them.

So, what is the real motivation for someone to be elected into government today? Is it because they truly want to serve the people that elected them? Or, is it because they want a position of power and authority. As a person who wants to believe that all people are good at heart, I want to believe the former. However, this is not the behavior I am observing from my elected officials. I see my elected officials taking exorbitant salaries for themselves, while listening to political lobbyists and their own political party, instead of the people that elected them. It looks to me like my elected officials see themselves as my Master, and, that their true motivation for being elected is to gain access to power and authority.

This situation begs the question: can a government of the people, by the people and for the people ever really work, if the people being elected cannot be trusted to work on behalf of the people who elected them? I believe the founders of the United States of America found the answer: limited authority, and checks and balances.

If we make the hypothesis that our government can become corrupt (in a manner of speaking) for the reasons I have already outlined, then what should we do? We still need some form of government in order to maintain society; even more so as the population increases. But, what if we limited the authority each "form" of government has over it's citizens? What if we build checks and balances into our system of government?

In my world, we call this separation of concerns. Basically, this means governmental authority is divided up. For those "forms" of government that have influence over large portions of the population, less authority should be granted. The rationale is simple: corruption in a government with wide spread authority will have more devastating effects. Thus, a corollary can be formed: that as a government's population base grows, it's authority should decrease. This is to minimize the risk and effects of a government that does not work on behalf of it's citizens; rather, it works on behalf of political parties and groups of elitists.

I believe this is what the founders of the united States of America were trying to do: put a system of government in place that would protect it's citizens from corruption that will most certainly occur at some point. After all, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I also believe that the bill of rights was put in place as a reminder that the government should serve the people, and not the other way around.

My colleagues like to tease me about using the term "slippery slope". Well, here it is. As we the people cede more and more authority to a centralized government, we are taking more and more risk that a centralized government will ultimately become our Masters. Of course, this will all be rationalized and done over a very long time (boiling the frog). But, I believe it will happen, because it has happened before. Look at what has happened to every great society in the world's history? Do any of them still exist today?

This brings up an interesting side bar. What about the claims of progressives? Can a distributed government make social progress? Some will argue that if not for Lincoln and the civil war, we would still have states that allow slavery (of course Lincoln was not a progressive - he was doing what he believed was right for humanity). This rationale is used to push the agenda of the greater good. While I agree that in this case the centralized government needed the authority to ban slavery, I do not believe this should become a precedent for large, centralized government. Clearly, no system of government is going to be perfect. We the people need to remain diligent in the monitoring and control of our government. I think this is the real lesson. But, I digress

Our founders put in place a system of government whereby smaller government units (city, county, state) could have corresponding amounts of authority over citizens of the United States. It makes perfect sense to me: give the government with the smallest population the most authority. This way, if the people are subjected to a corrupt government, they can always move away from the corruption. And, the government will starve without citizens. This seems to me to be the true strength of a democratic system. The problem with this form of distributed form of government, is that it makes it more difficult for a small group of Masters (or elitists) to gain control over an entire population. But, isn't that the point? Again, I am not saying that everyone who is elected is bad. I am simply pointing out the risks of large, centralized governments; whether elected via democratic process or not.

So, why did I do this blog? What am I so worried about? Well, let me tell you. I've been just as frustrated (even disgusted) with my political leaders as the next guy. But, it was not until this last presidential election that I realized how close we (the citizens of America) have come to becoming Servants of our government. I mean, we were so desperate for "change", that we elected the first person who promised us "change". And, here is the really scary part: we did not bother to question what was meant by "change". Instead, we allowed the media to convince us that the "change" we wanted would be accomplished, if we elected the one promising the "change". It was at this point that I realized we the people had lost control of our government. It was at this point that I realized the elitists were able to manipulate the voters into electing who ever they wanted. And, to what end? Isn't it obvious: power and control. I fear that the worst fears of our founders are at hand. I fear that we are allowing a large, centralized government to become our Master.

Here is the bottom line: unless we want to become Servants to our government, we need to take steps to get back to what the founders intended. We need to ensure that all forms of government are structured in order to minimize and protect against corruption. And, we need to ensure that all forms of government understand and adhere to their role as Servants of the people who elected them. Remember, if we don't choose not to be a Servant, it's the same as choosing to be a Servant.

Sent from my iPad

What are the odds?

I am a poker player. For those of you who know me personally, you know this to be true. But, for those who follow my blog; you might not have figured out the hidden meaning behind my pen name. Well, now you know.

The game of poker is very intriguing to me. For those who have not given it much thought, there's a lot of probability and statistics behind this game. And, being a math and logic guy, I suspect this is what intrigues me about the game.

As a poker player, I have taken my fair share of what we like to call "bad beats". I can just see my fellow players rolling their eyes; imagining that this blog is a bad beat story. Well, not exactly. But, for those who do not play, a "bad beat" is when the odds of winning are in your favor, and you lose anyway. This can be the most frustrating part of the game. Particularly, when you realize that your opponent played badly, and won anyway. It just doesn't seem fair. But, most poker players learn to take these things in stride. And, they realize that over the long term, the odds will be in their favor.

Now, if a player was consistently losing when the odds were in their favor, one might start to wonder what was going on. After all, you would think that if your probability to win was 80%, then you should win 80% over a period of time - right? Well, so, if you lose 10 straight times in a row, when you had an 80% chance of winning each time, what would you think? Isn't it logical that if you have an 80% chance of winning for each hand that you should win 80% of those hands? At least, isn't it logical that you should not lose all 10 of those hands?

Let's look at this from a different angle. Let's say you have a 20% chance of winning each of ten different hands. What percentage of the hands would you expect to win? For me, I would expect to win at most 40% of those hands. And, I would consider myself really lucky to win those, because I really only had a 20% chance of winning any one of those hands.

Let me switch gears here for just minute.

I was in Mumbai having dinner with friends and colleagues, and the subject of "intelligent design" came up. And, in the discussion, it was established that only two people out of the eight at the table believed in intelligent design. At the time, I remember being surprised by this statistic. But, I filed that away for later consideration, and we finished our dinner.

Later, I started to think about the Mumbai conversation. And, as my beloved wife will tell you, when I get stuck on something, I tend to dig until I find an answer. To be honest, I was surprised that 75% of the people at the table did not believe that God had created the Universe. So, I started my investigation. And, the more I read, the more disturbed I became. There were theories for everything - everything could be explained. I started to read more, and got even more disturbed. I started to have trouble sleeping. My mind was going crazy processing everything I had read.

Then one night I had a dream. In the dream, I saw probabilities; just like when I am sitting at the poker table trying to calculate the probabilities of my opponent's hand. Then I saw the probabilities lining up, and getting smaller and smaller. It occurred to me that this is the way probabilities work: If something has multiple things which must happen in sequence (in order to occur) the probabilities are multiplied with one another - making them smaller. And as the list of items grew in length, I saw the probabilities going to zero.

So, what are the odds?

The human body is very complex. Clearly, if we knew everything about the human body, there would be no disease or illness. People would live forever, because we would know how to make replacement parts. The point here is that we do not know everything about life. So, we cannot possibly know how long it would take to create life.

We do know, through science, that the universe has rules. There are rules that govern math. And there are rules that govern physics. Of course we really don't know if there are any other rules out there that we haven't discovered yet. Nor do we know if there are conditions under which the rules will change. The age of enlightenment has helped us (man kind) to work within the confines of the rules that we know and understand. But, what about what we do not know? What is the probability that we know everything? Well, we certainly still have a lot to learn in the medical field. And, we still cannot explain division by zero. I think it's one thing to work within the boundaries of what we know, in order to improve ourselves. I think it is something all together different to assume that we know everything, and to ignore the other possibilities simply because we cannot explain them. That seems to be arrogant - or ignorant - I am not sure which.

If you take a minute to think about cause and effect. That is, think about things that have to happen, in order for other things to happen. Now, take a minute to think about all the things that would have to happen in a precise sequence, in order to do something like, say, create the universe. I think that is a very complex thing to do; particularly since as far as I know, we still don't really know what happened. We have theories, stacked on top of theories. We cannot have facts, because we were not there. We cannot know precisely what happened. Yes, in the last 200+ years we have made fantastic technological advances. So, what? What does that prove? Does it prove we are suddenly smart enough that our theories become facts? What if we are wrong? We were certainly wrong about Pluto.

It's just like at the poker table: you are trying to make the right decision based on the information you have at that particular moment in time. There is a probability that you are right, and there is a probability that you are wrong. But, if you think someone has a hand, and when you fold the other player shows you a bluff, you have just lost out because the other player convinced you that they had a hand.

So, what is the probability that all the evolution theories are correct; as opposed to believing that God created the universe? Well, you have a number of things that would have to happen very precisely. And, according to what I was told, evolution says that life evolved based on defects becoming the new normal. And, that defects enabled the various species to adapt over time. I'm sure someone more enlightened than I has already thought about this; but, let me take a simple poker player's point of view. What is the probability that a specific defect occurred at the precise time that was necessary to survive? And, even if it happened, what is the probability that it continued to happen? And, even if it continued to continue to happen, how much time would it take? I know if time is not an object, anything can happen. But, the Earth has only been around a certain amount of time.

Evolution, is like thinking that a 1963 Chevrolet corvette would spontaneously manufacture itself. Yes, this car was manufactured. But, it was manufactured from parts. Those parts were also manufactured. How? Well, if you go back far enough in the chain, you are gonna get to a point where you either assume something (aka guess), or you take a leap of faith.

The odds are against evolution. For me, it makes more sense that the universe was created by someone (God) that knew what they were doing, and that was acting in a deliberate fashion (had a plan). To me, that makes more sense than a bunch of theories that could have accidentally occurred in a precise sequence, at a precise time, to create the universe. Think about it. Do you want to make a leap of faith based on theories from men who think they are enlightened, yet admit they don't know all the rules of the universe?

As a poker player, I would call to see the other player's hand - particularly if I was betting my eternal soul.

Moderate Democrats

I just saw a segment on one of the cable news channels, where one of the pro-democrat pundits claimed that the Democrat minority was a much more moderate body than it was before. Really? Of course, this particular pundit did not bother to back up their claim with facts. In typical liberal media fashion, they just made an unsubstantiated claim. So, let's explore this claim - logically.

This claim would be valid if the Democrats had lost the majority of their very liberal members in the recent elections. This is the only way the Democrats could claim they have become more moderate. What about that? Is it logical that a liberal Democrat would be elected in a moderate or conservative congressional district? Not likely. The Democrats that lost their seats were in moderate or conservative districts. That indicates to me that the more conservative or moderate Democrats were ejected from congress. Kind of counter to the claim by the pundit. If anything, it seems logical that the Democrats are more liberal than before, given the loss of the moderates that would offset the liberal views within their own caucus.

The second way the Democrats could be viewed differently, is if they were under different leadership. Well, despite the losses the Democrats took in the last election, they decided to keep Pelosi. Hmm - that's not a leadership change. In fact, it's a very liberal thing to do; not holding Pelosi accountable for the disconnect between the liberal agenda and the average American's point-of-view. Maybe Beck was right - if the liberals want to change the middle, they need to go further left. Is that the new liberal strategy?

The most disappointing thing about this situation was the blatant attempt by the media to manipulate public opinion. Facts are stubborn things. So is the field of logic and statistics. I don't think it's too much for the American public to expect integrity from the news media. Not only did the media blatantly represent opinion as fact, they clearly made no attempt to determine the truth before they made the report. Shameful.

Real Hope & Change

It's been a month since the latest congressional election. And, the Republicans have been given a clear majority in the House. But, that is not the Real Hope & Change the American people are looking for. The Real Hope & Change the American people are looking for, is in the way the government is run. It has nothing to do with one party, or the other. It has everything to do with bringing some integrity to a morally bankrupt institution. So, Republicans beware: Independents like myself have passed the mantle of leadership to you - but we can just as quickly take that mantle and pass it elsewhere.

Rush likes to refer to Independent voters like me as "no labels". Implying that we do not have the guts to follow our convictions and be either a Democrat or a Republican. Well sir, I think you have just proven that you are in fact the mouth piece for the Republican party. And, I resent you calling people like me a "no label". It is true that we do not want to be associated with one party or the other. And, that is because we do not identify strictly with one party or the other. We are not blind followers of the hype and spin that both parties like to spread, in order to maintain their power base. Independents like myself are thinkers; and, we want to look at each issue, and each individual, and make decisions based on the facts. We are not likely to blindly follow your propaganda (or anyone's). In fact, I think it is rather arrogant of you to take credit for the Republican victory; the Independents are the ones that made the difference. You would do well to remember that little fact. But, I digress ...

Today, in both the House and Senate, our elected government officials use earmarks to bribe one another to vote a particular way. That is corruption - plain and simple. Any time an elected government official votes with his or her party instead of his or her constituents, there is something wrong. The same is true when an elected government official votes with a PAC, instead of his or her constituents. And, when that same government official is putting (or permitting) earmarks into legislation, that representative is no longer serving the interests of America, or the American people.

Earmarks are intended to provide elected government officials with a "prize" they can take back to their constituents, in order to prove that they are looking out for the interests of their constituents. However, earmarks encourage decisions based on "deals" and "bargaining", rather than looking at the needs of the American people. Earmarks also encourage spending on particular projects or issues; something that has gotten way out of hand. In a time where our deficit is our biggest national security risk, I think it is time to put an end to earmarks.

The Real Hope & Change I see is the fact that the new House Majority Leader (Boehner) is calling for a ban on earmarks. Of course, an earmark ban is no substitute for a Balanced Budget Amendment, but, it is certainly a step in the right direction. We can only hope that Mr. Boehner will follow through with his promise to ban earmarks.

I was not as encouraged with the Senate Minority Leader's (McConnell) refusal to support the earmark ban. The ball is squarely in the Republican court on this issue. And, the American people are watching very closely. If the Republicans want to keep their majority in the House, I suspect they will need to do more than just talk about this issue. The Real Hope & Change is that we will finally see steps toward fiscal responsibility, and a government institution that is not based on bribes and backroom deals.

I have one more example of Real Hope & Change that I would like to mention. I was very impressed with President Obama's move to get both tax cuts and the extension of unemployment benefits put in place by the end of the year. To me, this is the way government should work; elected officials should be making laws that actually benefit all the American people. That said, I am not at all happy with all the earmarks that have been put into this bill. And, I am counting on the Republicans to make sure that the earmark ban is enforced on all legislation (including this one).

Again, I congratulate the administration for what I consider to be its very first effort towards Real Hope & Change. I am anxious to see if this is the beginning of a new era, or, if this was just a tactic to lure the American people into a false sense of security. I think only time will tell on this point.

So, what is the Real Hope & Change I am looking for:

• No more earmarks
• No more legislation that is accomplished by making backroom deals and bribes
  
• Legislation that keeps the needs of the American people at the center (like the tax cuts and unemployment benefit extensions)
• Elected officials that remember they work for the American people; particularly when it comes to things like special benefits and automatic pay raises
• A balanced budget amendment, that will force our elected officials to be fiscally responsible