Critical Thinking. Yes, It's Important.

Some time ago I promised to present an entry on critical thinking. I keep my promises, so here we go. First, though, we need to define a couple of terms.

A "message" is a piece of information. Keep in mind that information is more than just a plain fact, or a bit of data, or a single picture. Information has meaning, but what it means may be different depending on your background. One person may hear about a protestor getting beaten by a police officer and think, "Good, that punk got what he deserved." Another may hear the same story but think, "That officer belongs to the oppressive police state." It's the same story, but we can get any number of different messages from it. For most of us, the information doesn't teach us anything, it only reinforces our prejudices.

A "source" is someone who gives you a message. It may be a website, a magazine, a co-worker, a talking head on TV, or someone else. Most of them are passing along a message they got from somewhere else. The plain truth is that they all make some kind of change when they pass along that message. Some of them don't realize they're making the change, but some of them do.

To put it simply, critical thinking is what you do when you ask questions about messages and sources. Where did that source get that message? How has that source changed the message, and why did it choose to change it in that way? What was the message before they changed it? Perhaps most importantly, how is that source hoping to influence your thinking with that message?

Another way to look at it--we're now thinking about the process of thinking itself. Where do ideas come from? How do we make decisions? Why do we accept some messages as true and reject others as false, even before we have any evidence?

Here's a simple example. You see a defense lawyer on the news. He claims that his client is innocent. You probably don't believe him, but why? Because that's part of his job. He may know that his client is guilty, but he edits the message to include everything that favors his case and to leave out everything else. On the other side, the DA will edit the message in the opposite way, to make the defendant look guilty. In this oppositional framework, you get both sides of the story, so you have some idea of what each side is ignoring.

Here's a more complicated example. The Senate recently released a report on the CIA's use of "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation." People outside the bureaucracy, without its propensity for doublespeak, would call those procedures "kidnapping" and "torture." Sensible people (and I include you, dear reader, among them) know that this is not a left vs. right issue but a human vs. inhuman one. The CIA itself concluded in 1989 that torture is counterproductive, that is, the information collected is false more often than not, and the costs outweight the benefits in the long run. For instance, the inevitable publicity eroded our standing in the global community and made it acceptable for the other side to torture our people in return. At the most basic level, torture as an instrument of policy violates the Golden Rule, which appears in some form in every major religion. As we all know, however, the torture happened without a real public debate.

What is the source here? Primarily, the Bush Administration. What is the message? After 9/11, torture is permissible in the defense of our country. Unfortunately, the opposing message was fragmented and muted.

Let's ask some questions. Since we know torture doesn't produce good intelligence, why do it? The only conclusion we can reach is that their goal was not to get intelligence. Their goal also ignored the repercussions abroad, so it must have been something domestic.

All right, what were the domestic goals of Bush and the other neoconservatives? The only one that fits is their use of emotional manipulation to mislead the public. If you get people frightened enough, they won't pay attention to the other things you're doing.

The real trouble is, it's working. A bare majority of Americans (according to a recent poll) believe that torture was justified. These people aren't thinking, they're reacting to emotions. If that weren't bad enough, many states are trying to ban the teaching of critical thought. Are you starting to see why?

One more example. The scientific community is almost unanimous in its opinion on climate change. The opponents are loud, but who are they, exactly? Pick one, doesn't matter who, I don't want to prejudice your choice. Do a little research on that person. Find out who paid for her research, who she works for, who she cites for her evidence. Who is the secondary source for your primary source? Once you have the secondary sources, do more research. I can guarantee you that you won't have to dig very far.

There's a market for this junk science, and there's only a handful of scientists willing to compromise themselves so thoroughly. One of your sources for climate-change denial will lead you to this group. Remember, though, that they're only passing along a message. They work for the oil industry, which has a vested interest in maintaining the market for fossil fuels. In other words, rather than invest in a solution for a problem, they want to convince you that there is no problem, so they can continue to maximize their profits. For them, spreading these lies is nothing but another marketing campaign.

Here's the bottom line of critical thinking. Ask yourself, who benefits? The lawyer collects a fee whether is client is guilty or not. The Bush White House used federal law to transfer wealth from people like us to the have-mores, and few people noticed. The oil companies are still making record profits, and renewable energy is still in its infancy. All Americans should be using critical thinking and raising their hands to object to these deceptive strategies. That's not happening.

Why? Think about it.

Master Plot, Step 1

Here at Camp Wachagonadu, we don't spend all our time bashing rich white guys. We also watch college football on TV. That got us thinking.

Who runs college sports? Not the colleges. Not the players. Not the government. As you probably know, it's the NCAA (the National Collegiate Athletic Association), a private non-profit organization. Ostensibly, it promotes fair play among student athletes. It also oversees an industry that handles billions of dollars every year, has millions of customers, and has brand loyalty out the wazoo, all with practically no government oversight.

So why hasn't anybody tried to privatize college football? That would further several goals of the Money Party--show that capitalism works in every situation, reduce the size of government (since many schools are government entities), and deny funds to education.

In a capitalist world, sports teams would be free to hire any player of any age for any amount of money; they would play as often as they liked against whoever agreed to play them; anyone anywhere could start, buy, sell, trade, or dissolve a team. Only the market would limit what the players and the operators could do. In the real world, though, the operators would have to agree (for instance) on schedules with each other, as well as on rules and penalties so that the players could train properly. The NCAA does so by including school sports directors as members, and they help define the rules.

Once they started to coordinate their efforts, the operators could spend all their money on the best players and start playing. After a while, though, the operator with the most money would win most of the games, the public's interest would decline, and attendance would drop. They would need some kind of artificial limit to keep their teams competitive with each other. The NCAA does it by sharing revenue between schools.

Even with revenue sharing, one team could have a better team by hiring more players. They must set a maximum team size and make it tougher for players to even try out. The NCAA does it by setting eligibility requirements.

With their competitive teams, the operators can hold games every week of the year. Except that players would become injured more often. And star players would rotate in and out due to fatigue. They would have to limit the number of games per year, maybe concentrate them during a particular season. The NCAA, of course, sets schedules.

Finally, they'd want to keep another group from forming and cutting into their market. The NCAA claims that it's voluntary and doesn't discourage competition, but then, who could possibly compete? If someone could put together a private minor-league football system, don't you think it would have happened already?

So the NCAA doesn't follow the teachings of capitalism. In fact, it has all the distinguishing marks of a cartel: collusion, side payments, limiting supply, and barriers to entry. And there's one more thing about college sports that isn't capitalistic at all.

The core values of the NCAA, according to their Web site, are learning, balance, spirit, community, fair play, and character. All very commendable, but I take exception to the "fair play" part. That's because college athletes are indentured servants.

To put true capitalism into action, instead of just talking about it, you must allow college-age athletes to offer their skills to the highest bidder. Education has always come second for athletes, so why maintain the fiction? If a player wants to attend school, he can do it on his own time and with his own money. An athletic scholarship is just a euphemism for slavery. The school forces the athlete to work without pay (and it is a job), while the school (and the NCAA) reaps all the rewards. An axiom of capitalism is that you, not someone else, gain the benefits of your own abilities and efforts.

The current system doesn't really work for anybody involved. Either the athletic side or the academic side has to change ... or both can change. And that is the first part of my master plan.

College sports programs should have the option to spin themselves off from their colleges. Once they do, they become businesses in their own right. They can rent their facilities from the school or buy them over time, which continues the financial support that sports programs have always provided for schools. They can continue to use the school's symbols by paying a licensing fee, or they can develop their own symbols. They can even become a minor-league team for a professional team, a type of arrangement already in place in baseball.

As for the NCAA, these new private programs can still belong to it and still participate in all the same activities. We've already seen that the system needs some kind of oversight. All I'm suggesting is that we do away with the injustice of "amateur" athletes.

The employee athletes will have more time for training, since they don't have to attend classes. They will get the same amount of money from the program, but paid directly to them instead of as a scholarship. They may get food and lodging as part of their compensation package, or they may take cash instead. Since they'll be treated as adults, they'll have to act as adults, meaning they won't have (or need) all the restrictions of living in an athletic dorm. If they behave in a way that negatively impacts their performance or the image of the team, the team can always fire them.

With this one change, everyone can get what they want and deserve. The only real difference is that athletes get the money they earn. Of course, that means less money for the schools ... which leads to the second part of my master plan.

Something for Nothing

Back in February I vowed to find a better way to redeem America (see previous post). I'm back here to say that I didn't. However, I did learn a couple of things.

The election is upon us, and it probably won't change much of anything. If Obama wins, the Republicans will control the House, and nothing will get done. If Romney wins, the Democrats will control the Senate, and nothing will get done. Then again, that's the point. The election coverage (and the hyperpartisan feuding in general) is infotainment, a cloud of dust that obscures the real issues.

Many people, myself included, predicted a bad outcome from the Citizens United decision (see another post). The Money Party is pouring record amounts of money into the campaign, much of it in secret. The media are obscuring the real issues by distracting their viewers with infotainment.

I consider myself a moderate. I'm more interested in balancing the two major parties than in following one or the other. At the moment that means pulling left to counteract a pull to the right. If the left had a big advantage, I'd want to pull right. I point this out because, during my hiatus, I tried to convince people on both sides to see the big picture. As in my driving analogy (in an earlier post), both parties are so consumed with fighting over the steering wheel that they don't see where the truck is going. Apart from these activists, there's a significant portion of the country that doesn't care where the country is going. Either they're too busy trying to survive, or they're too wrapped up in their infotainment.

See the common thread? Infotainment. It's an endless diet of garbage served up on televisions, computers, radios, magazines, and anywhere else someone might suffer the risk of momentary boredom. I can't possibly compete with the quantity, but I have a shot at producing better quality.

So Wachagonadu will continue. As far as I know, only one person currently reads it (and you know who you are). That means doing some marketing, publicity, whatever you call it, to get more eyes. I have to hope that my observations and ideas will draw more attention once people become aware of the blog. Without a voice of sanity, our civilization on its present course could well spiral down into anarchy or oblivion.

Or not. Things rarely get as bad as you expect (but see my later post on "climate change").

That's one thing I learned. The other is that Americans are lazy. We want something for nothing.

Think about it. In general, people on the right want lower taxes, but they don't want any decrease in government services. People on the left want more services, but they have only vague ideas about how to pay for them. Both want the government to give them something for nothing.

Same thing with schools. The right wants lower property taxes, which is how most places fund their schools, but they expect their children to get a good education. The left wants schools to do what parents ought to do.

Health care? The right wants government completely out of it, but they ignore the huge cost increases that HMOs have brought. The left wants everyone to have world-class care, no matter what it costs, but someone down the line has to pay for that.

Politics? Worst of all. The right wants their entire agenda implemented, no compromise possible, and they'll hold up everything else until they get it. The left is even more cowardly, if that's possible, for letting them get away with it. And again, that's the point. Who benefits if the government is in perpetual gridlock? Only the people who can already pay for the services they need--the Money Party.

What ya gonna do? We expect the government to do ... something, even if we're not sure what, and we don't want to know the details of implementing it or how to pay for it. Because we're lazy.

I said I hadn't found a better way to redeem America. I now believe that this blog is the best way. If nobody listens, I've done what I could, but if there's an audience, my work will at least start a helpful discussion.

So it's time to stop being lazy. Find out how government works. Go to your local school board meeting, city council, or homeowner's association. Lurk for a while. Find out what the issues are. Then get involved.

Or you could follow my master plan for reviving America. It starts next time with ... football?

Enough Is Enough

Recently, I reconnected with someone who had been a good friend, in fact one of the best. We began a dialogue of phone calls and emails to get caught up with each other. Then he remembered that I was a "liberal." The calls stopped. Messages went unanswered. I had become the enemy. The truth didn't matter. Our prior relationship didn't matter. Has nobody noticed how foul the atmosphere has become in the United States? Did it happen so gradually that we became accustomed to it? Do we not become outraged because there's a fresh, more outrageous outrage every day? Enough is enough. Presidential candidates compete to see who can make the most heartless statement. They make thinly veiled threats against minorities. They insult everyone who isn't like them. They say their top issue is "beating Obama" despite the worst economy in generations. And they get applause for this behavior. Enough is enough. Politicians who are stupid enough to dispute climate change are fouling their own nest. They take money from the oil companies (or anybody else) and say what they're told to say. They put politics and their own careers ahead of the well-being, possibly even the survival, of humanity. Enough is enough. The arguments over "class warfare" and "wealth envy" are ridiculous. I don't hate the wealthy because they have money, I hate them when they abuse the power that money gives them. Making money is not an end in itself. Operating under the assumption that it is gives rise to amoral behavior. Excusing that amorality has become just another theme of the endless media circus. Enough is enough. When did religion become part of politics? Not just in the #1 distraction issue of abortion, but in the whole good-versus-evil, no-compromise, take-no-prisoners attitude towards every issue. We seem to have forgotten that politics doesn't work without compromise. Pretending they can get everything they want is childish. Enough is enough. I am angry. Complaining about things in a blog is no longer enough. Writing pointless letters to Congress isn't enough. Casting pointless votes isn't enough. I have to find a way to make a difference. When I do, I'll post it here.

Sucks to Be American

Here it is almost three months later, and my "talking points" thing hasn't gotten off the ground. It's not like the Republican candidates for president care about logic or context or history or facts. Their supporters don't either. By the way, if all the participants in a debate agree on all the major points, is it really a debate? So let's take a detour to the real world. In Money Party news, there is a new irritant bubbling up from the underclass. I'm talking about the Occupy Wall Street movement, of course. The wealthy seem confused about how to handle them. There's no leader to attack. There are no talking points to trivialize. The attitude towards the poor, the near poor, the middle class--in fact, anyone who's not a millionaire--seems to be, "Let them eat cake or dirt as they wish, but I don't wish to hear their complaining." For the benefit of someone who doesn't have time to read all my earlier entries, the Money Party is my term for the top one tenth of one percent (one percent in OWS shorthand). These uber-rich have bought up all the influence on our federal government and most on the states. Under the banner of "government bad" they are ruining our schools, our infrastructure, and our regulatory system. With ownership of almost all the major media outlets, they are poisoning our public discourse. They are busily removing the last vestiges of democracy with unverifiable voting machines and voter restriction laws. Ordinary citizens in this country have ceased to matter except as profit generators. The only serious response to OWS from the Money Party, apart from having the police interrupt the protesters in their constitutionally protected protesting, seems to be a note from a futures trader in Chicago. The general tone of the note is threatening, but in an economic way--"you take away my job, I'll take both of yours." He points out that he works long long hours, which also illustrates his sociopathic pursuit of money. For some reason, though, he never explains why his job is so important. What is an important job? Take the oil industry. Someone looks for a possible oil deposit. Someone drills down to the pocket of oil and pumps it out. Someone refines the oil into gasoline. Someone sends it down a pipeline. Someone puts it in a truck. Someone drives the truck to a gas station. Other someones design and build the geological equipment, the oil rig, the refinery, the pipeline, the truck, the station, and all the other pieces and parts that keep the whole system going. All of those someones and pieces and parts make up the real economy. Our futures trader does nothing but move around virtual pieces of paper and associated piles of money. He does it so that the already wealthy people who buy and sell gasoline can have a slightly less volatile price at some point in the future. This kind of financial wheeling and dealing is not part of the real economy. Unfortunately, this bogus kind of wealth creation is now responsible for a larger portion of our gross national product than the real kind of wealth creation. It's important only because it makes the wealthy wealthier even faster. It's like a giant vacuum cleaner sucking all the money out of the country, leaving less and less for everyone else to use to keep the real economy going. If you want a simple answer, there it is. That's why America is in trouble, that's why people are angry, that's why there has to be an Occupy Wall Street.

Talking Points Destroyed: Unions

The Money Party's noise machine is burying the needle to get you numbed up for the next election. I'll be demolishing their talking points one at a time for the next few posts. First up, for Labor Day, unions. They're evil, of course, because they're corrupt. Well, corporations are corrupt, governments are corrupt, your local PTA is probably corrupt. Anyone with unchecked power becomes corrupt. Unions are different because they're supposed to be on your side. Have your ever tried to talk to your supervisor about unsafe working conditions? Probably not, because you know it's futile. You're outmatched before you even walk in the door. Who's on his side? The Chamber of Commerce. The Supreme Court. The Republican Party. Industry groups. The media. The stockholders. The list goes on and on and on. One way or another, the Money Party gives money to all of these groups. Who's on your side? Only you. You're on your own. There are supposed to be government agencies, such as OSHA, to help. Even talking to them can get you into trouble. Usually they don't get involved until someone gets hurt or killed. A company like, oh, British Petroleum, can push workplace safety to the back burner. The government agencies who are supposed to check up on oil rigs have their hands tied, with slashed budgets, congressional interference, and indifferent staff. The company itself pushes management to skimp on everything, including safety equipment, safety training, emergency manuals, and routine maintenance. If a situation has become obviously dangerous, employees are discouraged from complaining to their supervisors, the government, or the media. All these conditions come about because the company wants to make a few extra bucks, and they are deliberate. When an oil rig or a coal mine blows up and kills people, then, it's not entirely an accident. It's dangerous to work on an oil rig, or in a coal mine, or atop a skyscraper under construction. Some accidents are simply unavoidable, and people will die because of them. Some accidents are avoidable, but if you let management decide how much effort to put into avoiding them, they'll err on the side of profit, not safety. One reason the union is there is to protect you from avoidable accidents. Yes, that cuts into profits. The question here, though, isn't about whether employees will risk their lives. They do that every day. The question is about how much risk they're willing to take and about who decides on an acceptable level of risk. If you belong to a union, you have a seat at the table, and you can help make those decisions. If you don't belong to a union, you're on your own. You can take the risks your employer decides are acceptable, or you can look for another job. On the company's side, spending more on safety adds to the cost of drilling for oil or mining coal. The human cost of getting at those resources should be reflected in the total cost. If the cost of drilling a mile down in the Gulf of Mexico becomes prohibitive, then alternative energy sources become more attractive ... and that's exactly how free enterprise is supposed to work. Another reason for unions is to keep wages fair. If you ask your supervisor for a raise, you have no leverage, nothing to bargain with. As with safety, the deck is stacked against you, but with a union, you and your co-workers can negotiate as a group. You have a seat at the table. During the reign of the Money Party, we've seen productivity go up, which means profits have gone up. Wages, on the other hand, have stayed practically flat. I keep saying that the wealthy are greedy and short sighted. This is a prime example. Because they refuse to share their increased profits with their employees, the people who make those profits possible, they keep more money in the short run. At the same time, they tell their employees--in their own terms, economically--that there is no reason to work harder and increase productivity any further. Productivity levels off, profits level off, and they lose money in the long run. That doesn't sound complicated, does it? And yet it's a lesson they haven't learned in thirty years. What ya gonna do? Management and labor should be partners. Both are affected by decisions about the direction of the company. The employees in the trenches know how the industry works from the bottom up, while the officers see things from the top down. Putting those perspectives together can only help a company. Partners don't always agree, but they both want to advance their shared enterprise. By making the workplace safer and keeping wages in line with productivity, management and labor can both benefit in the long run, which also makes our country stronger.

Have a Cookie

Everyone's talking about the debt ceiling, as if this is somehow different from everything else government has done (or rather refused to do) lately.

They call Republicans the Party of No. In a two-party system, there is a place for conservatism, for a voice asking us to consider if we're going down the wrong track or moving too quickly. No doubt there are real conservatives out there. Today, however, we have a pack of spoiled children who are drowning out all the rational adult voices.

In a classic behavioral experiment, psychologists give children and adults a choice: they can have one cookie now or two later. Almost invariably the children take the single cookie, while the adults opt for two. They call the childish behavior "instant gratification" and the adult behavior "deferred gratification." Deferral is one of the bases of civilization. If you don't eat your whole crop during the year and set some aside, you can plant again next year. If you have extra money, you can loan it to someone who starts a new business, and later you may get your money back with interest. If everyone pays their fair share of taxes, the government will invest some of it in infrastructure and research, and later everyone benefits.

Today's Republicans appeal to the impulse for instant gratification. You should have your tax money now instead of waiting for it to bear fruit. You should run your business however you want now instead of coping with regulations. You should attack other cultures now instead of trying to learn about them or talk with them. We'll give you one cookie now if you'll sign over your interests in two future, and possibly imaginary, cookies.

They may not think that way, but they behave that way, and that's what counts. It's shameful, it's embarrassing for the grownups, but worst of all, it's helping to destroy our society and our country.

If it sounds like hyperbole, consider this. Since deservedly losing power in 2008, Congressional Republicans have accomplished nothing. Absolutely nothing. In the midst of the worst economy since the Depression, they've given up on their responsibilities to their constituents, to their country, and to their duly elected president. They behave like children who kick and scream because they don't get everything they want.

Republicans have managed to succeed at one thing: brainwashing. They've found a flaw in our democracy. To work properly, a democracy must have informed voters. For various reasons, though, Americans have mainly tuned out public matters. A good government is a boring government. A bad government gets certain people excited, and not in a good way. People make emotional decisions when they get excited, which is when they most need to make logical decisions.

So the Republicans tell the same lies as often and as loudly as they can. If they stir up greed, hatred, fear, anxiety, bigotry, if they make their opponents seem weak or indecisive, then they can always get certain segments of voters to the polls. It doesn't matter what we think we're voting for, just that we vote for them.

Here's something nobody talks about: why do Republicans want to get elected? They say government is the problem, so why become part of the problem? They say being an outsider is good, so why fight to become an insider? The truth should be obvious: they're lying. Their only goal is to gain power, and once they have it, to keep it. Once they have power, though, they don't know how to use it. They only know how to campaign. They become slaves of their wealthy contributors. The rhetoric and propaganda that got them into office make for lousy governance. Once the voters realize all that, they vote the Republicans out of office, and the cycle begins again.

That's where we are today, and that's where the real tragedy is. They never learn from their mistakes. Our country is facing problems that destroy livelihoods, families, institutions, even lives, and they do nothing but complain because they're not getting their way. The true work of a politician is to find workable compromises. These Republicans refuse to compromise. They have failed at their jobs and should resign.

Some call them zombies. Motivated by hunger, zombies have no conscience. Republicans have consciences, yet they choose to misinform, spread fear, block help for needy people, and funnel public money (your money) to those who already have too much. What they do is shameful. Even more shameful is that they get away with it so thoroughly. Apparently, though, shame in Washington became unfashionable after Joseph Welch called out Joseph McCarthy.

When children misbehave, they lie to hide it, and when they get caught, they lie to cover it up. The only difference here is that politicians are better liars. We the people need to be the adults and take back our country.