Category: values

Experts should be on tap not on top!

The new refrain of the liberal academic is “ Trust the expert because they are smarter than you”.

The new refrain of the liberal academic is “ Trust the expert because they are smarter than you”. While an expert is more read and practiced in their area of work, it does not generalize to all life. It may not even signify expertise in their general area of study. They may even be incorrect in their interpretation of the data as well as their conclusions. They maybe correct in their interpretation, but their data maybe inaccurately collected, not representative or what is referred to as outlier data. Science is a search to understand the natural processes of the universe. It is ever seeking answers. Well publicized and commonly accepted natural laws are subject to refinement or correction. There is a level above process, that science can’t explain, values.

Democrats new mantra directs you to follow the lead of the experts. Suppose, you have different values than the expert. Are you wrong to hold different values. Perhaps some will believe you are, (see )When You can’t decide, if you believe in free speech!some won’t! The beauty of our system of governance is that it recognizes, even tolerates differences! Government force is employ only to protect, not in place of a persuasive argument. This doesn’t mean you can’t espouse your point of view or attempt to persuade. It doesn’t mean you celebrate the opposing point of view. You may even believe what is advocated is abhorrent. It does mean you can’t interfere with an individual’s natural right to believe it. If you don’t agree, advance your position, persuade, don’t seek to compel!

Science explains process in the natural world. It doesn’t tell you what you should hold valuable or how to live your life. Simply because you agree with a study, doesn’t make it valid! It certainly shouldn’t be a justification to use mob rule to order the lives of others based upon your beliefs in an expert or study. Experts are a resource to be employed, like a tool, not a ruler to Decide your lifestyle!

If you stand against” categorization by government of mis or disinformation like this post and continue to speak your mind! Free speech demands protection especially that speech you disagree with. There is little need to protect the popular view! Experts are useful, just not as rulers!

When You can’t decide, if you believe in free speech!

Many say, “ Why do I care about speech I disagree with being allowed to be disseminated?” This statement fails to comprehend that not all agree with your world view and possibly even your interpretation of reality.

There is truth, but it is not always simple to find. People are limited by their physical bodies to their experiences and the experiences they have been told of. ( even some that may be outright fabrications advanced by someone promoting a particular point of view ) People are not always truth tellers.
If you weren’t there, you learn from those, who you trust. Perhaps you trust a teacher. They are authority figures. How many students review original sources materials even, if it is suggested I didn’t. In fact I can count on one hand those who read outside sources of any kind and I am an advanced college degree holder.

Besides the physical limitations, individuals may act based upon different facts. These maybe actual facts, but outlying information, unusual occurrences of information We would refer to this as outlier data. It is not misinformation. It is actual data, just unusual in its occurrence .
Individual’s minds use information to organize their world. How do we combat use of outlier data? We combat with more information! More data means less opportunity for outlier data. We also must understand that even observations are limited by financial considerations.

Science focuses on observable processes. Value judgments can’t be scientifically measured. They may be preferred or non preferred viewpoints.  Results can be observed, but those results are data interpretations based upon facts. They can be true. They need not be. Even if the data is correct, the conclusions can be errant.

Remember values are not facts! Not everyone may share your values. Values are not misinformation. Unless they hurt someone else, you are permitted to believe differently than others. Remember Christianity was once a minority set of values in ancient Rome!

Who, What, When and Where are surpassed in Journalism by the feelings behind Why!

Think critically. Insist news is only who, what, where and when.

When I  was an undergrad ( as my daughter says back in ancient times ) I took an entry level journalism class and wrote previously for a high school newspaper. The class and newspaper faculty advisor, drilled into my head, always put in news pieces only who, what, when and where. Why is for your audience. Facts are who did what. Where and when did they do it.

There is a problem in journalism, when why is interjected. Why someone acts maybe undiscoverable. Think about that. What sources really know why? If the actions of many are questioned, (ie stock movement) I contend it is impossible to ascertain. You may identify contributing factors. you may interview some buyers and sellers and cite the most oft listed reason as the reason why for the stock movement.

What you have listed as the reason is still subjective. If you accept that a thorough job was done of interviewing most of the sellers and buyers of a stock, you are still left with a question. Can the interviewees be believed? Some interviewed may not have given the sale or purchase much thought. Some maybe swayed by how the interviewer asked the question. Some may just not tell the interviewer the truth for any of an unknown number of reasons. Who did it. What  was done. Where it happened and when is much less subjective and more verifiable. Sure, a seasoned reporter may have to sift through accounts to determine, who actually witnessed an event. After sifting, some will think they saw something they did not really see. However multiple witnesses where available or dissection of individual accounts can frequently sort the wheat from the chaff. This is why in Court cross examination is so important. Reading requires one to critically think.
Today we are given conclusions, why. In some instances one can glean the who, what, where and when from a thorough reading or listening to a journalistic piece, but not always. This is because the proper pleasing narrative is more important than the actual facts.

What does this mean? Eyes reading an article or clicks in the digital realm are more important than facts.

Hasn’t it always been so? Yes, but what is different? I postulate and this is my why ;that the reading public believes journalists only report facts, so they squelch their natural urges to question, to think critically.

what should a reader take from this article? Don’t depend on headlines, read any article critically. Ask who, what, where and when? Is it in the article? How many sources were consulted or witnesses interviewed? Are the conclusions supported at all? Is there more than one explanation? If you just assess the who, what where and when, is there even a need for the why?  Can the why be supported? If yes, do you understand the subjective nature of why is separate from news.

Today, the why is a reason to call out any disagreeable conclusion as misinformation. Is it? Can people with a different perspective, see the why differently?  Is the author intellectually honest? Are sources cited? If sources uncited, how many sources or witnesses are there?  Read critically! If there are too many unanswered questions, why do You believe it? AmI biased or not open to new facts or other views

Do self examination. Think critically. Insist news is only, who, what, where and when. Why is subjective.  Don’t just know have evidence. Knowing without facts is faith. Some values are only supported by faith, but understand that!

How the death of personal responsibility means an end to your freedom and ultimately your choices

Choice is difficult. It requires critical thinking and doesn’t provide for a guaranteed outcome. It allows failure. It also allows for growth. So remember the next time you are in a quandary and believe government is the answer. Somewhere out there countless others are prepared to solve your problems for you and make your life safer and insure your mediocrity too! It won’t cost you too much, just a choice. Choice and freedom are a small price to pay for guaranteed minimal growth and mediocre achievement! Perhaps even a universal income, so all can starve uniformly!

The government is the only entity big enough to solve this problem! There ought to be a law! This whole thing is caused because “they” won’t listen, so  “we” have make them listen. What do these three rallying cries have in common? They all are a cry for help requesting the aid of the “ mob “ through government force to assist them in their never ending tolerance.

What is being said is simply this; we can’t fathom a way out of this time, so let’s allow the majority through government to impose a solution. While in the economic marketplace the individual decisions ( proposed by the exercise of individual choices, the market )allow for frequently unforeseen, unpredictable, sometimes even confusing and multiple different outcomes because the country has a vast and differing political and social landscape. Surrender to the government is easier and produces a single hydra ( multi headed )solution, which seldom satisfies anyone, is seldom if ever reevaluated for efficacy and results in  one winning group imposing it’s will over all others. Many times these half measures endure for years without any review.

An example business the  is the FSLA. A 1930’s government solution born in a long gone era, which still works it’s 1930’s magic in our times.  Ask your accountant about it’s role in today’s more fluid economy. Ask about the weekly pay standard and hourly rate preferences housed ina law, which works to promote uniform countrywide standards enabling government withholdings among other similar beast feeding solutions . Of course they limit use of  different standards more useful to today’s marketplace, but they provide for a certain method to feed the beast ( the federal government) and  promote an outdated overtime standard, which favored dying  “ union shops “ champion. There is one complication, the union shop has been drastically reduced, yet the law remains! For Congress is akin to the ‘fickle finger of fate”, it writes and moves on. It never looks back. It reduces options and is built upon until it not only reduces options, but eliminates opportunities for the birth of entire industries. It serves it’s purpose. It protects those, who seek protection and eliminates unwanted competition along with choice as well as your personal liberty. Don’t like employer based healthcare? Say thank you government, then lookup it’s origins.

How does this “ let the government do it affect me?” It limits your choice. Limiting your choices, ultimately limits your opportunities! Government rules are the gold standard for those, who don’t want to overly tax their gray matter. What else does it do? It limits your opportunity to give and get advice. Your payoff is: you get no new service industries, which might recommend alternative and better courses of action because the mob “elite”has decided the  best path for you. Some will still lose. Sometimes even the lamest trap catches game. The government approach takes not only options but option presenters off the table. Everyone gets the few acceptable common choices, so the few, who will still find other ways to be swindled, are protected to an extent because education is not a meaningful option and of course the many have reduced opportunities.

Don’t get me wrong, a landscape that permits many choices can be a challenge and requires time and critical thought and may even seem overwhelming at times. It may require more than a thirty second perusal to decide a path to follow. Inconvenient! There will be  some, possibly many,  who will lose under an approach that allows more innovation. We do have courts and information sharing systems to help sort out solutions as well as those,who peddle the modern day equivalent of snake oil. We should also be able allow or “tolerate” to use the left’s now meaningless vernacular, more choices.

Most uses of government result in fewer choices and less freedom. Eventually after government decides what treatments are “ safe enough “ which doctors know enough, what businesses are essential enough, it will decide for you what thoughts you should be allowed to express and in what you must believe. Hail the advent of 21st century back door of the re-educational gulag under the guise of “ real “ democracy. Remember, tyranny can be by many just easily as by one. It is why Marx theorized of a stage, where there was a “dictatorship of the proletariat” Government solutions are advanced now by both political parties, but championed by the Democrats, whose elites understand “your”limitations.

You must wear a mask because to do otherwise jeopardizes your neighbor’s health.  Others are just too uninformed to act to protect themselves and the traditional family is an outmoded and useless remnant or the oppressive and patriarchal past, which will not care for you like only your government can! Therefore the experts have have recommended and your betters have decided for you! You need no longer pay attention to those pesky mortality tables, so you know, who the vulnerable are. They can only be deciphered by epidemiologists. The  vulnerable and those closest to them are too feeble or lack the expertise to isolate the vulnerable. It is better for the elite minds from both parties to shut down 40% of commerce and send out $1200.00 government checks with a nice note to remind you, who voted for it. So make certain re-elect the most recent incumbent.

Besides I don’t live in the Caribbean or any country or even a state that survives on tourism or hospitality, so I don’t have to face the poverty and death caused by a ludicrous policy that allows a virus to run rampant at a lower level in my community indefinitely until there is sufficient immunity to finally oust it.

Choice is difficult. It requires critical thinking and doesn’t provide for a guaranteed outcome. It allows failure. It also allows for growth. So remember the next time you are in a quandary and believe government is the answer. Somewhere out there countless others are prepared to solve your problems for you and make your life safer and insure your mediocrity too! It won’t cost you too much, just a choice. Choice and freedom are a small price to pay for guaranteed minimal growth and mediocre achievement! Perhaps even a universal income, so all can starve uniformly!

 

Tolerance versus Celebration

Freedom of speech is not free in our society or any other society. Writing words, which are not in line with the latest public opinion is not done without risk. What about the first amendment guarantees, you ask? These are assurances that government won’t stop you from speaking. An individual who dares to write words, which are contrary to the popular public narrative, risks ridicule and sometimes worse, depending on whose ox is gored.

I promise this will be a shorter post than usual. What prompts my rant? TV viewing and friendship.

I happened to remark that lately I cannot turn on a popular network TV show without being assaulted by overt public displays of affection by fictional LGBTQ characters. I did not request this content, nor do I hear an outcry for it, yet it is now not only overt but ubiquitous. When I ask my liberal friend, if that person noticed, I was shown a sign, which stated I support love or something similar.

Let me end this quickly. I don’t care, who you love.  The LGBTQ population appears on the fringe of any population demographic data set. It is estimated that the entire grouping is 4.5% of the population. So why are LGBTQ sexual subplots ubiquitous in network programming?

First understand it is part of the LGBTQ groups’  attempt to mainstream their behavior. Many especially the bi coastal liberal elites and their allies in the Democratic Party, have decided tolerance (allowing the behavior to exist without societal sanction) is insufficient. You must join their crusade,accept and celebrate (proclaim as normal and push for societal acceptance) As such the allies have set out to characterize the fight of this group as a civil rights cause.

This crusade is different from the civil rights fights of yesteryear. This fight is about conduct which occurs behind closed doors and is well outside the societal norm. African Americans, Asians and other groups were discriminated against not because of their publicly displayed conduct, but based upon their ethnicity. An African American or Asian frequently could not disguise and should not have been asked or required to hide their ethnic features. Judgments about  individuals in these group were formed without any knowledge of their character and were solely based upon the observed physical, ethnic characteristics.

Do you inquire of  anyone before you hire: with whom are you having  sex? If you are selling them a product with few exceptions, do you even care? The answer in most instances is you don’t care and would never know.

What is being done here is social manipulation/engineering. Our society is being manipulated. What conduct is next to be assimilated? Multiple partner marirage or sex with children? How about sex with pets?  Sex within family?Can there no longer be any societal norms? Must every pronouncement of sexual expression now be accepted because it is about who you love?

The union between a man and woman is special because in many instances it leads to progeny, which regardless of the ravings of the Malthusians remains valuable to society. Both Europe and the US would be wise to take notice of the value of maintaining their populations.

While I am confident this post will be misrepresented as bigoted Homophobic, Xenophobic and small minded, I stand behind my premise  I will not discriminate against any individual, but don’t telI me I must accept any individual or group’s conduct that I find morally repugnant. I can have friends and business associates,, who practice conduct I don’t agree with, just don’t ask me to accept and promote their behavioral choices and don’t bombard me day after day with overt public story lines simulating their practices in public program content or I will discontinue consuming the offending content and I will encourage others to do the same!I will not accept that which I find to be morally objectionable.

So in closing allow me to say I do not fear the label of Bigot, Homophobe or whatever other degrading label the left may seek to place upon me,  I harbor no ill will toward anyone, but I will not accept, promote or watch conduct I find unnatural and morally repugnant.