#truth #deceit #4CornersOfDeceit #debate #facts #conspiracies
The “Four Corners of Deceit”: government, science, academia and the media.
The late radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh coined this term several years ago, as he claimed climate change was a hoax.
Contrary to that theory, former Vice President Al Gore called climate change “An Inconvenient Truth” in his book.
This is not just a simple debate. This “dispute” creates parallel universes of “truth.” One is smart to treat everything one reads or hears, purported as fact, with a skeptic’s ear.
But to take on our origins of knowledge without any basis of fact is reckless, even dangerous.
It has led to debates about what children should learn in school. Do we want our kids to learn only what we want them to know, or hear? Or, do we want them to learn the truth and follow the facts wherever they lead? We shouldn’t want them to believe things just because we want them to believe them. We should want them to be thoughtful, mindful and diligent about discerning truth from conspiracy, then making up their own minds about what to believe.
For example, certain types of discrimination are carefully taught in some households. But, as children go out into the world, they often find that what they were taught to hate cannot, and should not, be hated.
They may come across people whose behaviors they do not understand. But they learn that that is no reason to hate them.
Limbaugh may have found those institutions to be deceitful because they exposed things that were contrary to HIS version of the truth.
Certainly, one knows that not everything that comes out of those four corners is true. One can also ascertain that government, or some forms of media, can and do create narratives intended to make people believe what those institutions want them to believe.
But academia’s and science’s sole purpose is, or should be, to find the truth, teach the truth and not dress the truth in something that might make it look like something it is not.
By labeling our institutions as pillars of deceit does a disservice to our way of life. It does a disservice to our ability to advance our society, progress with new inventions and find ways to live even better lives.
Facts can be pesky things. They can get in the way of a good story. But, they can also expose REAL deceit among people and entities.
We’ve morphed into a society that, when someone doesn’t like something, he or she feels free to make up something different. We’ve come to believe that if someone with a big megaphone says something loud enough, often enough and unwaveringly enough, at least some – enough? — people will presume it is true, even if it isn’t.
Such a society is not a good place to raise and educate children. Children must learn how their ancestors created the world, and the tactics they used. Some of those tactics need teaching so the next generation will behave differently, and for the better.
No one is perfect. No one acts perfectly all the time. We make mistakes. But we, or those who come after us, must acknowledge those mistakes for what they are, so they will not be repeated.
Challenging certain truths can do real damage to the world we so carefully want to preserve.
Peter
Author Archives: pbilodeau01
ARE SOME TOO QUICK TO USE A GUN?
#guns #shootings #intruders #visitors
Shoot first; ask questions later.
That mantra may have applied in long-ago wars.
But it seems to have been revived in modern-day America.
A black teen-ager rings a doorbell at the wrong address when he went to pick up his younger brothers.
The house’s occupant, with a storm door between him and the young man, shoots the teen through the door.
By most accounts, no words were exchanged before the gun was fired.
Normally, when someone rings one’s doorbell, the first instinct, if the resident does not know the person, would be to ask, “may I help you?”
If that Kansas City resident had just asked that question prior to using his gun, a young man with a promising future likely would have responded that he was looking for his younger brothers.
Further conversation undoubtedly would have cleared up the fact that the young man needed to go to a different house with a similar address not too far away.
Similarly, a young woman was killed when the car she was in accidently turned into the wrong driveway in Upstate New York.
Since then, two cheerleaders were shot in Texas when they accidentally got into the wrong car. And, a 6-year-old girl and her father were shot by a neighbor upset that a loose ball had rolled onto his yard.
These incidents reveal not only a fear of the unknown, but also the impulse to deal with that fear by using a gun. They also reveal that inadvertent mistakes can be very costly – but they shouldn’t be.
Certainly, one has the right to protect his or her home, life and belongings from intruders.
But, shouldn’t one ensure, to the best of one’s ability, that visitors, even ones who may be lost or have mistaken a destination, are not intruders who intend to harm or rob, before using lethal force?
It could be argued that other factors may have contributed to the reactions. It also could be argued that if one does not act first, and the (perhaps mistaken) visitor is indeed an intruder, that the resident is more likely to be the innocent victim.
Perhaps it may come down to the type of person one is, or the views of the outside world that a person holds.
But it still rests on assumption of the worst without necessarily having a reason for such an assumption.
One could ask what might have happened had the resident not owned a gun, or not had his gun readily accessible to take to the door.
But few would dispute one’s right to protect his home.
But that right of self-protection does not give the person the right to shoot someone for no apparent reason, because he or she made a mistake and went to the wrong place.
One could ask the shooter whether he or she had ever made such a mistake, and what kind of reception he or she would expect from a stranger for making that mistake.
The lesson here may be to ask before shooting. Or, at least, tell the person to keep his distance until the purpose of the visit is ascertained. If the person refuses, or otherwise threatens, then all bets are off.
A few simple words – “may I help you?” – can prevent a lot of tragedy.
Peter
ARE YOU ‘QUIET QUITTING’ AT YOUR JOB?
#QuietQuitting #jobs, #employers #employees #GiveItYourAll
The phenomenon is called “quiet quitting.”
Workers do the minimum at their jobs so they can pursue other things outside of work.
Michael Smerconish featured at segment on this on his CNN show Aug. 20, 2022.
He interviewed a young engineer who was doing this at her job, so she could pursue an entrepreneurial side hustle outside of work.
Smerconish asked her the obvious question, to paraphrase: if your side hustle doesn’t work out, how do you think your current, or future, employer will feel about you?
Though it’s advertised as something relatively new in the workplace, it’s very likely that others have done this in the past.
It’s been said that if a job were not work, they wouldn’t pay you. It’s also been said that a worker, particularly a young worker, should not expend the entirety of his or her energy at a job. Instead, he or she should do what he or she needs to do at work, and save energy for activities at home, hobbies or, yes, even side hustles.
To be fair, some jobs pile more stress on workers than the compensation covers. Some employees resent that, but stay in the job anyway, for whatever reason.
On the other hand, as an employee, you should feel enough dedication to your work, and, yes, to your employer, that you give that employer your all – within reason.
Some jobs with narrow descriptions often expand into other duties, and an employee might resent that. “It’s not my job, man.”
Still, employees should feel enough dedication – not obligation – to their employers to do what needs to be done, if they have the ability, even if the duties are not spelled out in a job description.
Make no mistake: some employers will sense such dedication and take advantage of it.
The solution seems to be an employer-employee relationship in which both parties are not just satisfied, but enthusiastic. The employee will do what is asked, expected and more, while the employer happily compensates them well. That compensation may not be entirely financial. It can include creating a work environment in which the employees feel not just appreciated, but cherished. The employer-employee relationship should be less transactional, and more of a bond.
Such environments don’t exist everywhere. In fact, some may say such environments are rare.
Today’s tight labor market makes it incumbent on employers to make their workplaces such that people want to come and stay. And, while they are there, the employees WANT to give it all they have.
But, employees have a part to play. They have to create their own happiness at work. In some places, that is not possible. But, if the employer is making the effort to create a good culture, the employee has to make the effort to embrace it.
There is nothing wrong with side hustles, or having cherished activities outside of work. But, if you have a job, give it your all – again, within reason.
Another lesson here may be that if you are a “quiet quitter,” don’t advertise it to the world.
Peter
PROTESTS, LEGISLATURES AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
#NashvilleProtests #StateLegislatures #guns #SchoolShootings #AssaultWeapons #LegislatorsExpelled
Recently, thousands of students walked out of schools in Nashville, Tenn., and elsewhere to protest the Tennessee legislature’s lack of action to deter school shootings.
The previous week, six people – three adults and three 9-year-olds – were killed in a shooting at Covenant School in Nashville.
The capitol steps were overwhelmed with students, parents and others calling for mitigation measures to deter gun violence.
As Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution points out, there are more school shootings by far in the U.S. than in any other country.
Yet, as Downey writes, some legislatures seem to value the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution over second-graders’ lives.
In fact, two Tennessee state legislators were expelled from the House of Representatives, and a third survived expulsion by a single vote, for joining in the protests.
But the legislatures nationwide can learn from the Nashville protests.
First, the legislatures’ agendas may not be the same as those of some parents, students etc. Some of these protesting students will succeed the current occupants of legislatures one day, and their vision of a safe society may be very different from that displayed by some legislatures today.
Therefore, legislators of today can either begin taking measures to mitigate gun violence and gun possession among those that should not possess them, or they can leave it to the next generation to start to fix the problem. By waiting, there is no telling how many more children will get shot.
Better security in schools is a great idea, but given the power and availability of sophisticated and deadly weapons today, potential assailants can just shoot their way past security. Therefore, more security may save some lives, but not all.
The framers of the Second Amendment could not have had any idea that such killing machines would be created, and how certain members of the public would cherish possessing them as their “right.” Back then, it was all about defense against colonial tyranny, and the sophisticated weapon of the day was a one-shot-at-a-time musket.
Downey points out that there are more guns than people in the U.S. The more guns we have, the more likely it is that some, if not many, will end up in the wrong hands.
Also, some life happenstance can quickly turn some law-abiding gun owners into people who are no longer law-abiding.
If a law-abiding gun owner loses a job, loses a business, loses a loved one or has something else happen to him or her, does he or she suddenly feel so helpless that he or she may be tempted to take revenge, even against people who may have never wronged him or her?
In summary, as may have been demonstrated in Nashville, the next generation will have had a different experience with deadly weapons from that of their current elders. They may not be so easily swayed by those whose interest is in selling more guns.
When that generation takes over the political arena, attitudes likely will be very different. We, as the current generation, can do those children a big favor and begin to act now. Very few object to gun ownership for recreational, even self-defense purposes in some cases.
But the weapons that can expend multiple bullets very quickly are neither recreational nor defensive. They are mass killing machines. What purposes, other than evil, does it serve for so many of these weapons to be in the hands of a wide civilian population?
We can either begin to fix the problem now, or, certainly, the next generation – some of whom would have heard or witnessed gunfire in their schools as children – very likely will.
Peter
LET SYSTEMS UNDER STRESS PLAY OUT
#systems #stress #SystemsUnderStress #GovernmentalSystems #machines
When you nail, screw or otherwise attach something, the first thing you do is pull on it, or put weight on it, to make sure it is secure.
When you put a system in place, you don’t always know how well it will work until it is stressed.
That goes for all systems, including governing systems.
Many governing systems today are under stress, including those in the United States, Israel and other places.
Such systems have been stressed before and survived. Today’s stressors, however, may not be like past ones.
In many ways, these are tests for the security of the system. But these realities are more than tests. They can determine the survival of the systems.
Think of these as not just historic moments. Think of them as first-in-a-lifetime stressors.
How a nation emerges from these can give its people assurance that the system works, or can show them how easily it can be abused, misused or even destroyed.
The people of that nation need to hope and pray that not only will the system survive, it will be better for it.
As with any other stress test, there could be temporary breakdowns. Things can go wrong. Hopefully, things won’t go so wrong that they cannot be repaired.
As people of such a nation, we must not deliberately interfere with the system. We must let it play out. If the system is to work into perpetuity, we must accept the outcome, whatever it is.
Of course, we can have opinions. Of course, we can debate how things SHOULD work. Such discussion is not only healthy, but can help make things easier or better when the next stressor comes.
Think of it this way: if you have a machine that is under stress and working very hard, do you stick your hand inside while it is running? In most cases, you don’t.
When it stops, or if it breaks down, then you get into it to make repairs.
Many times, the machine will not only tolerate the stress, it will do what it is supposed to do.
Governmental systems don’t stop when under stress. They usually do what they are supposed to do.
Sticking one’s hand in the middle of them while they are running is perilous.
When the stress is done, it then is incumbent on all of us to evaluate how the system performed, and, perhaps, make changes so it performs better the next time.
When there is unnecessary interference, we may never know how well the system would have performed.
In short, if the system is designed well from its inception, it will perform properly under stress.
Let the system do its thing. Eventually, the stressors will be gone and the system will show us how well it did.
Peter
MEANING OR HAPPINESS? WHY NOT BOTH>
#happiness #meaning #purpose #trascendence #storytelling
“There’s more to life than being happy.”
So begins the “Money Matters” column by Wes Moss, published in the July 3, 2022 edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Moss, who writes about happy retirees, says crafting a life that matters may be more important than happiness.
Moss cites the book “The Power of Meaning: Crafting a Life That Matters,” by Emily Esfahani Smith, who, Moss writes, has made it her mission to show how people eschew happiness for meaning.
Her four pillars are belonging, purpose, transcendence and storytelling, Moss writes.
Belonging involves having a relationship with a person who values who you are, not for how you look or what you are willing to do for them, Moss writes.
Purpose involves the reason a person gets out of bed in the morning. It may not be what others may consider a grand purpose, but if your job was your purpose, and now you are retired, you may need to find a new purpose, Moss writes.
Transcendence is the ability to be awed by something sacred. That something may not be sacred in the religious sense, but it may give you a sense of amazement, peace or stillness, Moss quotes the author.
Storytelling is the narrative you would write about you – what makes, or made, you the person you are today.
If your life has meaning, as you see it, you are not necessarily unhappy. Your purpose may indeed make you happy.
One who does little or nothing with his or her life may be content in their relaxation, but it may be debatable whether they are actually happy. Contentedness and happiness are not the same.
Most people have meaning in their lives. As Moss writes, that meaning may be different for everyone.
Most retirees have things they can do when they no longer work. Others may keep working well beyond their retirement age.
Whatever you find meaningful, chances are it will make you happy. Meaning and happiness may go together like hand and glove.
Just as most everyone has some meaning in their lives, everyone has a story. One’s story may not be as compelling as someone else’s, but his or her story has meaning not just to themselves, but others close to him or her.
In short, meaning and happiness can be dual goals. If one finds one, the other may soon follow.
Go for both.
Peter
EVEN FOLKS WITH ‘HIGH’ INCOMES HAVING MONEY ISSUES
#incomes #SixFigureIncomes #inflation #FinancialProblems #MoneyManagement
Yes, it’s possible that a couple making a six-figure income together can still have financial issues.
Nedra Rhone, “This Life” columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution discussed this in a column published June 23, 2022.
Rhone says many people believe that anyone making six figures a year with financial problems have money management, not money, problems.
But as rents skyrocket and prices for gasoline and other goods rise to levels not seen in decades, it is possible for two people making a combined, six-figure income to have trouble making ends meet – never mind saving for the future.
Some decades back, a young couple just starting out in life might have thought that if they could just make $20,000 a year together, they would be OK.
Inflation has kicked that goal up fivefold, or more.
As Rhone points out, it’s great to teach kids, and young adults, good money management skills. It takes some discipline to watch what one spends money on. And, certainly, we all can improve our money management skills.
But, the lesson here is that costs of living can’t keep rising without some, if not everyone, feeling the pinch.
Food, shelter, clothing, energy etc. are all necessary for living and working. People certainly can cut out frivolous expenses, unnecessary trips etc. But everyone has to eat, have a roof over his or her head, drive to work etc.
Some recent trends are helping. For example, more people are working from home. That saves on energy, clothing and, perhaps, some food costs.
But, not everyone can work from home. In fact, it can be assumed that the less money you make at your job, the less ability you may have to work from home. Trades people, hospitality workers and others have no ability to work from home.
Fortunately, the world economy works in cycles. That means prices won’t stay at these levels forever.
Much of the high-price trends have to do with pent-up demand after pandemic lockdowns. More people are working than there were two years ago.
Wages are trending up, but many are no better off because of that pent-up demand. Some economic sectors are still having trouble filling jobs, even with offers of more pay and, perhaps, benefits.
A narrative is circulating that government policy is the prime driver of the inflation we are seeing. In reality, there is very little that can be done by government at any level to make a real dent in inflation.
The couple in Rhone’s column could look for a cheaper apartment. Those are hard to find in most areas. In fairness, landlords have had trouble the last two years getting tenants to pay rent on time because the pandemic cost the tenants their jobs temporarily. These landlords, along with retailers and other merchants, are trying to recover some of what they lost.
Rhone’s point in her column was not to criticize others’ financial situations. Don’t try to put a simple solution on a complex problem. Chances are, if you were in the shoes of the six-figure couple, you probably would face similar problems.
Times are tough for most of us. It’s time we all be less critical or judgmental of others, and more sympathetic and helpful.
Peter
DON’T LET OTHERS TAKE POWER OVER YOU
#power #”WomenTalking” #Oscars #ReligiousRestrictions #dreams #action
Imagine life in a religious enclave, in which men had total domination over women.
It got to the point that some men were physically attacking the women at will.
That is the premise behind the movie “Women Talking,” which won at 2023 Oscar for best adapted screenplay.
The movie is set in decades past in a village of deeply religious people. Even though the women were regularly attacked by men, they held fast to their religious beliefs. (One has to wonder about the attacking men’s religious beliefs).
As the attacks mounted, the women had to decide to stay and do nothing, stay and fight or leave. Many meetings and raucous debates ensued.
Ultimately, after much discussion, they left, with all the horses, wagons, livestock, food and other supplies, as the men slept.
The movie never shows how the men reacted when they woke up and found the women gone.
It may be hard to envision that scenario in modern times. But, pockets of such behavior undoubtedly exist today.
It begs the question: why was it such a difficult decision for the women to leave?
In the movie, part of the debate centered around their religious beliefs. Their village was the only life they knew, and they wondered whether they would ever go to heaven if they left. But they came around to realize that for a good life on earth, they had to go.
Have you ever been in a situation that you felt it difficult to escape, but also impossible to endure?
Life sometimes puts difficult decisions in our path. Sometimes, our difficulty in making a decision involves, as was the case in the movie, self imposed limitations.
We grow up in a certain household, with certain beliefs engrained in us. As we mature, we start to see that what we were told was, if not false, not realistic for our own purposes.
That may be why some parents encourage their kids to stay close to home. For if they venture out, they may discover other ways of life and adopt, if not embrace, them. They may even discover that they are not who their parents think they are.
Maturity brings a sense of self. One has to find that, and do what one needs to do to fulfill it.
If one endures hardship, he or she must find ways to eliminate it, or, at least, put a limit on what he or she has to endure. Some hardships may have good outcomes in the end, and one has to have the grit to take them on.
Your difficulties may not be as obvious as the ones faced by the women in the movie.
And, often, one may not have a way to avoid hardship befalling them. But, one always can find a way to eliminate, or at least mitigate, that hardship eventually.
It starts with discarding self-imposed restrictions that make very little sense as they relate to the hardship.
Then, one has to dream of what life could be. Once that dream is in place, figure out what you must do to achieve that dream.
Yes, it may involve taking drastic action – doing something you thought you would never do. You may be surprised that, once you take drastic action, it wasn’t hard to do as you thought. The women’s decision to leave in the movie was hard for them, but once they decided to go, they knew it was right for them.
In short, know who you are and remain true to yourself. Eliminate self-doubt and self-imposed restrictions on achieving what is right for you. If where you live is incompatible with life and safety, decide whether moving or fighting obstacles others impose on you is better for you. If moving seems a hard choice, try it and see how hard, or better, it will be.
Don’t let others claim power over you.
Peter
ROBOTIC UMPIRES TO GET TRIAL RUN THIS BASEBALL SEASON
#baseball #RoboticUmpires #umpires #BaseballSeason #pitchers #catchers
Baseball season is coming.
They are trying to see whether robotic umpires can call balls and strikes, and how smoothly that would work.
Reports say that they will be tried in the minor leagues (Triple A) this season.
One might think that robo umps will be better than human ones. After all, human umpires can get it wrong.
Folks believe the robo umps will always get it right. (One might add that they have to be working properly).
Players are objecting to the robo umps because Major League catchers have become adept at framing pitches that are borderline, thereby converting what might be a ball to a strike.
The reports say the robo umps will not be fooled by even the best pitch-framers, and it seems some, if not many, players don’t like that.
Umpiring a baseball game has been a classic human, and fallible, science. The plays happen so quickly that it’s possible the umpire might not have a complete view of them all the time. So, they make calls to the best of their ability. And, yes, they don’t always get them right.
Calling pitches behind the plate can be a matter of human interpretation. When one watches a baseball game on TV, he or she often sees a square (or rectangle), invisible to those on the field but visible to the TV audience, over the plate. Theoretically, the pitcher’s job is to get the ball inside that square for a strike, unless he purposely throws it out of the strike zone to see whether a batter will chase it. But, inevitably, pitches inside the square might be called balls, and those outside the square might be called strikes, because the umpire’s “square” is in his imagination.
In decades past, pitchers got to know how each umpire interprets the strike zone. That gives a pitcher a better idea where to locate his pitches when that umpire was working behind the plate. Some umps had a “high” strike zone. Others had a “wide” strike zone etc.
Some Major League umpires, mostly in the National League, had wider strike zones. Thereby, some pitchers can do better in that league than in the American League because they may be “given” pitches that are an inch or two off the zone. That makes them better pitchers than they would be with a narrower zone.
As mentioned above, catchers began to hone the skill of framing pitches. If the pitcher throws the ball an inch or two off the plate, a catcher could not just catch it, but slide his mitt over an inch or two as he catches it. That might make the umpire call the pitch that was not quite a strike in the pitcher’s favor..
The robo umpires will electronically watch only the flight of a pitch, not where it ends up in the catcher’s glove.
In short, no one likes to see machines replace humans, especially when fans enjoy every aspect of the game.
Some fans actually love watching players, managers etc., argue with umpires, or, at least, give the umpires the stink-eye after an unfavorable call.
On the other hand, fans of the game may not like to see players (humans) manipulate the game to make it look like “cheating,” unless, of course, one’s favorite team is doing it.
Technology has helped a lot of sports get things right. Instant replay, or other electronic reviews, are common in many sports, and calls on the field, or court, get overturned by them. (Some resent the delays of the game this causes).
As a fan, one should let the baseball authorities know how they feel about technological innovation.
Getting things right all the time can take a lot of debate out of a fan. Sometimes, debates are the fun part of fandom.
Peter
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A COLLEGE EDUCATION?
#CollegeEducation #education #colleges #EducationDecisions
Does one get a college education simply to get a good job? Or, does one get a college education to expand his or her mind, and learn to think critically?
It appears most students today view a college education in practical terms: what’s the (employment) payoff at the end?
But, should they?
Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, explored this topic in her May 10, 2022 column.
Downey quotes from the book “The Real World of College: What Higher Education Is and What It Can Be,” by Wendy Fischman and Howard Gardner of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
The authors accuse college of “mission sprawl” and abandoning their main purpose, which they describe as enabling students to analyze, reflect, connect and communicate on the critical questions they will encounter in their lives and in the world, Downey writes.
“You go on a college tour and you hear about 100 different things,” Downey quotes Gardner. But what they don’t hear enough, in the authors’ minds, is how colleges develop the mind, Downey writes.
“If students don’t leave college better thinkers, writers and communicators, the colleges fail their core mission, Downey attributes to the authors.
Let’s break down what a college education is, and should be.
First, let’s establish that no college education is wasted, if the student vigorously pursues his or her studies, regardless of what his or her major is.
But, if a student, or his or her family, is paying dearly for that education, the student and family can reasonably expect a payoff at the end. Usually, that’s defined as a good job and career launch for the student. Worse yet, if the student incurs thousands of dollars in debt for that education, he or she had better have a good income to pay it back.
Today’s political environment might describe what the Harvard authors say the colleges’ mission should be as “indoctrination” of a certain political position. Or, as Downey calls it, “political correctness and free speech.”
A college education today also involves fun, new friendships, sports and other entertainment that can help mold a young person’s life.
This begs the question: why can’t a college education accomplish both the academic and practical goals students may have?
Certainly, some students’ studies can focus on critical thinking. Others can focus on the practical skills and knowledge that will help them launch the careers they want.
It boils down to choices. A student first must figure out what he or she wants to do after college. That requires him or her to take a certain batch of core courses toward that end. But in every semester schedule, there are usually electives that a student can choose to take that may have nothing to do with his or her major, but are of personal interest.
The smart student will choose those electives to help him or her develop his or her mind and make him or her a more well rounded, or well grounded, person.
Remember, too, that a college education isn’t for everyone. So, students and parents must determine whether the prospective college student is suited to college and ready for college (academically and financially).
The choices the student makes if he or she goes to college will determine how he or she uses his or her degree after graduation, and what kind of person he or she becomes.
Peter