The Anarchy of the Rule of Opinion and Belief

In a democratic republic, such as the United States of America, the idea of democracy takes the form of representative government.  The people do not actually rule.  They do not directly create laws in any form.  Representatives are elected to localities, and those representatives create the laws.  Ideally, the people have agreed to follow those laws as they conduct their business and their lives.  This idea is known as the rule of law. 

Generally and specifically, the people and their representatives tacitly agree to not to break the laws their elected representatives have democratically voted on and enacted.  There is no suspension of these agreed upon laws short of blatant disobedience. The result can be the beginning of societal disorder, such as the partial shutdown of the government brought about by the House of Representatives stubborn refusal to legislate. Remember, writing, arguing for or against a bill, and then voting on it, is why, by law and by oath, they are there.

It does not matter what representatives or constituents believe.  If an enacted piece of legislation is personally disagreeable, then any representative is welcome to write new legislation to reverse it, if he can convince enough of his fellow representatives to go along with his new thinking.  Congressional rules preventing any part of this process obstruct the governmental process. This is the main exercise of democracy we use in Federal government.

If large political groups, religious, business, or just professional lobby groups, assert opinions that are contrary to Presidentially endorsed laws; that is their right.  Written or spoken opinions are protected by the First Amendment.  Nevertheless, politically aligned Congressional representatives cannot prevent the enforcement and enactment of those laws under any circumstances.  To allow governmental obstruction is to disrupt the rule of law and risk the fracture of the foundation of American society.

So Much to Do

     There is much to do in this world.  There are people in need.  Our lives can be made to work smoother.  There is much to do in this country, state, city, and neighborhood. There are many people willing to do some of the work that needs to be done.  But much of the work has no funding.  In the case of large projects, like building bridges, fixing infrastructure, building housing for the homeless, there is not even funding for planning the projects.  Some people then assume there is no need to plan and execute these projects.  But this is not true.   Many things need to be done to improve our society and help the unfortunate, even if the money to do them has not been publicly or privately earmarked. Our leaders cannot think of everything, and have not.  As good as most of us have it, this is not "the best of all possible worlds." We have to help them.
     It is my position that there are many worthwhile projects that should be planned and funded simply because there are people who are in need of worthwhile work and are unable to find it.  There are people who lack experience and vocational training because there are too few ongoing projects where they might get it.  To take this thought a step further, I would hazard a guess that the tax paying public, tax weary though they might be, would rather they get more for their tax dollars, let's say in the realm of unemployment payments and welfare, than nothing.  What if they could put people to work for the good of the neighborhood, city, state, or nation?  I think the tax payers would go for that.
     This is my idea.  Plan more projects.  Plan to train more people in all types of work.  Plan to spend some money.  There is money.  Don't tell me there is not.  Money is imaginary anyway.  I say, "Imagine the money.  Imagine and plan the projects."  Okay, I know it's not that simple, but more imagination is definitely needed.  Imagine helping people to live better; all of us.  Imagine putting people to work who want to work.
      Nay sayers could say, "Government is too big, now.  I want government to be smaller and more accountable."  I disagree, but not out loud.  Instead, my answer to them is, "Do it privately."  That will not fly either.  Nobody wants to spend their profits, dividends, or inheritance on something that will improve the society the live in.  They would rather complain about the government, too many taxes, or ignore everything that needs to be done to make this a better world.    This is not socialism or communism.  This is the flawed, entropic world we live in, and a lot more needs to be done that will not necessarily make a profit.  I have not even brought our children and grandchildren into the picture. But our society and our lives could be improved if we used our imaginations and took a chance or two.

If you agree, share this post with others that might also agree. Thank you for your time.

What About Firearms and A Scientific Opinion from Steven Pinker

     Let there be no mistake.  I am against private citizens owning and using firearms of all types.  I would like the U.S. to be more like Japan in that sense.  Few remember how we imposed this on the Japanese after the war.  But that genie is already out of the bottle and there is no re-corking.  It is a reality I am forced to accept.  What was behind thinking behind the NRA and its hijacking and distortion of the Second Amendment, I cannot imagine.  There is no Constitutional originalist mandate for owning and using firearms in this country.  This is a twisting of the Second Amendment by the gun lobby, its deluded supporters, and is bolstered by the Supreme Court, who, unfortunately, is the final arbiter in the matter. Or are they?
     Who is to say that the issue is settled and that guns will be with Americans from here on.  Is there no re-thinking or re-framing of the matter.  Considering the amount of gun violence and suicide in this country, one cannot just give up trying to change people's minds.  Most Americans are clearly deluding themselves with the Second Amendment argument.  It is only self-righteousness and fear that make people cling to their weapons.  But it is also flawed thinking and a bit of Emperors New Clothes that prevent a rational debate from re-arising.
     Steven Pinker wrote in The Better Angels of Our Nature, "People can not only overcome their revulsion in cahoots with their peers, they can become sadists.  And people can avow a belief they don't hold because they think everyone else avows it; such beliefs can sweep through a closed society and bring it under the spell of a collective delusion."  This is what is occurring in the questionable reasoning of gun advocates and the twisting of the Second Amendment.
     Professor Pinker is a Harvard Psychologist, thinker, and writer.  His book, mentioned above, talks about our culture's penchant for violence, but also shows how that violence is slowing abating, by slow, civilizing means.  He quotes studies, shows graphs explaining principles and annotates everything.  It is quite a slog to get through this tome, but for any thinking person who wants the trend of declining violence to continue, necessary reading.  
     To continue my thought above, the emperor's nakedness is the mass delusion of the Second  Amendment encouraging people to have and use guns on an every day basis.  This lunacy is clearly out of line with peaceful coexistence and the better principles of civilization.  The rest of the "First World" knows this and recoils at our gun culture.  Wake up folks and take another look at this whole line of thinking.

Internet Exposures

Between sharing Photos on Flickr, Picasa, and Panoramio, and writing Wading into the Stream, Viewing and Views, and a few reviews for TripAdvisor as Clifton Jim, my work has been exposed to thousands.  So far, all of this has been done for free.  But I will talk about my current lack of income in another posting.  What is remarkable is that so many people who have never heard of me, were exposed to my creations because of the Internet.  After eighteen years online, I am still astounded by the power of it.

Obviously, these viewings are no big deal, but I am very gratified to know that there have been 2777 views of my photo of friend, Nancy Niehaus's bed & breakfast, The Clifton House, in Cincinnati.  I hope that some of these people gave her some business.  Then there is The Hotel Belvedere in Italy.  While I have no idea how many people read my TripAdvisor review, I hope at least one couple or family was influenced enough to stay there.  It is family owned, out on an island on Lago Maggiore, and you really have to want to go there.

Then there are my readers in Russia.  Привет хорошо образованных граждан России.  How did you find my blog?  Was it random or were you referred?  I am curious to know.  I know a couple of Russians who now live in the US, but they were co-workers or employees.  It is unconceivable that any of them would recommend my writing.  Please write a comment if you check back in.

Finally, the most flattering members of my audience are the ones that viewed my wife's 2005 photo of me that I entitled "Bearded Middle Aged Man on Cincinnati Porch"(www.flickr.com/photos/jf58/57183423/).  It has been viewed 130 times and I cannot imagine why.  It is not because I am good looking.  Perhaps the bearded men of Clifton have a reputation of which I am not aware.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also visit: http://viewingsandviews.blogspot.com

Telling the Truth: Struggling vs. Presenting Your Perspective

Telling the Truth: Struggling vs. Presenting Your Perspective

Sam Harris’s Google+ Blog, “The Straight Path, A Conversation with Ronald A. Howard (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-path-of-honesty) gave rise to some thoughts of my own about the truth.  Below I’ve written a few of my own observations suggested to me by the article.  

• ·      The importance of telling the truth is a factor of either, how old you are, or, alternatively, how long you are going to have a relationship with the person to whom you are speaking.
• ·      If you, as the speaker of truth/or not, have a perception that you will live an indefinite amount of time, or will have an indefinitely long relationship with the person you are potentially lying to, you have a lower likelihood of telling the truth.  I think this is true even of people who usually intend to tell the truth. The key word is relationship.  There is some unknowable correlation between one being more likely to tell the truth to someone with whom you have a relationship and the potential for lying to someone in a one-off transaction.
• ·      There is such a thing as too much truth.  Like your favorite weather conditions, a sunny sky, a cool breeze, a refreshing shower, or a lovely snowfall, too much of any one or more of these conditions will produce undesired results.  Too much truth can work the same way.
• ·      Self-deception is just as potentially destructive to anyone involved, as telling lies.  Whether the people you are dealing with detect the truth about you or not, whatever you say regarding that self-deception, and particularly, any actions you take based on it are more likely to have adverse results. 

It is not enough to intend to speak the truth, most of the time.  Everyone is better off if we tell the truth, even if it can put us in awkward situations.  We might even find that we have fewer awkward situations if we tell the truth more often.  Even well intentioned lies can have adverse consequences.  Often these consequences follow later, when they are most inconvenient.

The Economic Compass Needle

     When an American is unemployed he is counted in the national "Unemployment Rate" which was reported, Friday, April 5th, as 7.6%.  NPR reported that rate along with the proviso that only job-seekers are counted as unemployed.  Those who choose to retire, whether formally or informally, or otherwise give-up on searching for a new job because they are frustrated by a general lack of response, are no longer counted as "unemployed" by the Labor Department.  Does this mean that those people don't count?  No, it just means that they are not included in that primary economic indicator, "the Unemployment Rate", one of the most significant indicators used by economists, and therefore, government officials and the media, to show whether the "Economy" is getting better or getting worse.
     Who cares if the "Economy" is getting better or getting worse?  The answer to this is more complicated than who is counted as unemployed.  In brief, banks, Wall St. traders, stock and bond holders, the government, and much of the mass media sometimes treat the economic direction like that is all that counts.  If the unemployment rate is declining, the economy is improving.  So when the "Unemployment Rate" calculation is adjusted by adding or removing whole groups of unemployed people, like who is looking for a job because they believe they can still find one versus those who are temporarily disheartened, the bean counters are playing with numbers that make a difference to a lot of people.
      This means take heart, fellow unemployed job seekers!  Those times when there is no HR assistant calling you to schedule an interview, nor any recruiter seeking to make money by connecting you to your next position, remember that you are still an important cog in the wheel of the national economy because you are still seeking a job.  You are vital as an economic indicator; monetary gauge to the most respected, influential, and powerful people in the world.

George Clooney's Advice for Job Interviews or Auditions

     In January 2012, George Clooney appeared on Bravo's "Inside the Actor's Studio" Season 18. For two hours he talked about acting, directing, and producing movies.  I like George in all of these roles.  He is from my area of the country.  I grew up watching his Dad deliver the local news in Cincinnati.  But as an Operations Manager in transition (i.e. looking for a new job) I was particularly struck when George talked about how auditions used to make him nervous until he figured something out.
     Imagine this suave, Cary Grant-like actor being nervous about auditioning for acting roles.  Didn't he just get every role he auditioned for?  Apparently not.  George actually worried about what would happen if the casting director didn't like the way he interpreted a part or what he would do if he didn't get the role he really wanted.
      George said sometimes actors get in their own way.  He told himself, the worst thing that could happen at audition (or interview) is that he would walk out of there without the role (or job) that he didn't have when he walked in.  From there he gave other audition advice.
     This struck me as great interview advice.  If you didn't get the job, you would still be able to interview for other roles.  You would still have your skills.  What would happen if you got the job? You would still be the same guy.  The company would still be the same, except you would have one of the jobs.  There was very little difference between getting the job and not getting the job.  Oh sure, there is the money, but you are the same. The only difference is that somebody decided to take a chance on you, that you would be able to perform that job well.
     There is no point in being nervous about the outcome of auditions or interviews.  You are who you are.  What you need to do is present yourself in the best light that you can predict your interviewer will want to see you, and hope for the best outcome.