Predicting the Future

 It's an established fact that most people in the United States think they can predict the future. 

Look at the results of the last election. Approximately half the people in the country are delighted that the future looks bright. The other half are not just disappointed; they are depressed and frightened. 

Why do we act this way? It's because we are absolutely convinced that we can predict the future. Any doubt that may linger in our minds is wiped away by the dire or uplifting predictions, the enthusiasm or glum behavior of our chosen news outlets. One side sees the country as saved, while the other sees the country is doomed. One party sees a savior in the White House; the other sees a fascist, a dictator worse than Hitler. (Had the election gone the other way, one side would see a savior in the White House and the other a communist, a dictator worse than Stalin.) 

And whose fault are these misconceptions and exaggerations? It's the fault of the very political parties we support and the news media we follow. The messages have been reinforced daily for the last six months, over and over. And it continues. Fear sells, and we have been set up, manipulated by the news media and by social media to the point that we really believe the predictions. We are sure the we can see into the future.

Face it. If you could predict the future, you would be fabulously wealthy, living on your own private island away from all this chaos. The fact that you are not means that you are, to one degree or another, WRONG. So why do you continue to kid yourself? What's in it for you - except a chance to ride the biennial emotional roller coaster with a ticket price of your own mental stability. 

Thinking Things Through

Before making up your mind, especially on a matter of principal, it's important to think things through. Here a some recent examples from my personal experience.

Because of a reduction in space at a new facility, I have been storing in my garage various items for the entertainment committee. Recently in preparation for the annual holiday party, the organizer asked me if I had any coffee cups in one of the half dozen storage bins. I told her I had many sleeves of foam cups. She was distressed, "I hate to use those. I worry about harming the environment." "Well," I said, "We can throw the out, possibly harming the environment, or we can use them and then throw them out possibly harming the environment. Once they are purchased, those seem to be the only options." I guess we will eventually use them.

Many years ago an admin associate at my work confessed to me an unusual situation. She was asked to make several copies for a meeting of the executives. After the copies were printed, she realized that she stood a good chance of being reprimanded by the cost conscious group for not printing them on both sides. To avoid the risk, she threw them out, reset the printer for two-sided copies and ran another batch. She was off the hook, and the executives were happy, little realizing that their bullying approach to cost-savings was driving counterproductive behavior within the organization. (And based on this and other examples, it was clear that they also didn't have a business climate or culture that would lead to correcting the problem.)

In a conversation at a family get together, the subject came up about self-checkout at the grocery store. It seems many people in person and on social media like to brag/virtue signal about how they only use live checkers because they don't want to take jobs away from people. I said that I don't worry about that because my local grocery store has had help-wanted signs up for a couple of years. Nobody's jobs are in jeopardy. The situation is quite the opposite. He responded, "Now that you mention it, my grocery store also has help-wanted signs up. I never thought about it that way."

Related to the last story, how many people worry about all the telephone operators, who used to work as intermediaries for all long-distance phone calls (or elevator operators or gas station attendants)? Most people today are not old enough to remember those jobs and would feel inconvenienced at the added wait time.

Imagine all the other situations where people make up their minds and take a stand on problems that only need a little more thought, a little critical thinking.

Do Seatbelts Really Save Lives?

 A little over a year ago, I retired this blog with a final summary. But I just can't keep quiet about some of the craziness out there.

I know the news agencies thrive on picking and choosing what they tell us and then telling us in a way that supports their political narrative. That can be expected. But when they, apparently unwittingly, present real information in the form of misleading headlines, it appears someone is not thinking things through.

Recently CBS (and others) came out with this news story about inadequate seatbelt warnings. The headline reads, "47% of people killed were not wearing a seatbelt." This gives people who do not want to wear their seatbelts a perfect argument that 53% percent of people killed were wearing a seatbelt - very little difference. So what's the big deal? The headline is not only not persuasive, it can be turned on itself to draw the exact opposite conclusion.

What needs to be said is that about 10% of people choose not to wear their seatbelt, but people not wearing seatbelts account for almost half the people killed in auto accidents. That means your chance of dying are about nine times higher if you don't buckle up. That's quite a difference from the implied comparison of 47% to 53%!

With use of seatbelts actually declining in recent years, wasn't anybody at CBS paying attention to the possible misinterpretation of their message? Poorly presented news is little better than fake news.

Medical Science

Everything is moving so fast. The media reports on new research, studies and discoveries daily. People are living longer, healthier lives due in part to medical advancements.

 

I expect that this endless parade of seemingly miracle cures drives people to look beyond medical science and put their faith in so many unproven remedies. Scientific-sounding sales pitches, ancient wisdom or endorsements by friends, relatives and celebrities lure them in. Then all it takes is a little placebo effect to convince them that they have made a great discovery, and they too spread the word. 

 

Americans throw away countless millions of dollars in pursuit of relief from their latest aches and pains. Here are a couple more examples from reliable sources.

 

The first is about acupuncture. Many people believe acupuncture is an effective and safe alternative to mainstream medicine. Safety is not really the issue here. In the category of complimentary and alternative medicine, most of the pills and procedures are safe because they don’t do anything. The question in this case is whether it works.

 

If acupuncture works, it seems reasonable to assume that acupuncture points really exist and that experts or experienced practitioners can find them. Otherwise it would be random needling, a technique that would fly in the face of a theory based on the existence of qi and its meridians accessible at particular acupuncture points.

 

Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies after looking at 14 separate studies found “’considerable variation’ in localization of acupoints among qualified medical acupuncturists.” They admit that accurate point location is a significant factor in effective treatment, but the various methods of finding them yield highly inconsistent results. 

Furthermore, my original source points out that the depth of the needles to access the point is not specified; and if the points were real, “wouldn’t they vary in location [from person to person] just as other anatomical structures” like blood vessels do? So many unanswered questions throw considerable doubt on the practice.

 

The second example concerns chiropractors charging thousand of dollars, not covered by insurance, for spinal decompression on a special device to alleviate back pain. One such device is “a mechanical table attached to Space Age-looking controls that its manufacturer claims can stretch the disks of the vertebrae.” (Medieval torture chambers had a similar table but without the space age-looking controls.) 

 

A group called Fair Warning, “based on review of lawsuits, scientific studies, government documents, chiropractic websites and interviews with experts, found that the claims of success for spinal decompression stretch the truth,” and that the treatment “has never been proven [to be effective] in scientifically rigorous studies.”

 

While Internet advertising and participating chiropractors rave about success, insurance companies describe the machines as experimental and investigative. While the promoters boast of success rates of 86% to 90%, investigators found their studies “lacked scientific rigor” and that “no definite conclusions could be drawn.”

 

A professor from Oregon Health and Science University and an expert on the subject of lower back pain says, “Eight in 10 people with back pain get better on their own.” The marginal difference with this machine, even if true, hardly seems like a good investment, especially since it has also resulted in serious injury.

 

Both cases are scientifically very dubious. Unfortunately, science means nothing to Americans unless it supports their preconceived notions. Climate change is real, based on science; but nuclear power is dangerous, based on emotion.

Note: To receive in your email a very informative free weekly newsletter on the latest health scams, sign up at this link.

Critical Thinking in Crisis

American critical thinking is hard to find and completely disappears in the face of a crisis. During the virus scare last spring, two types of info emerged. One, often from the medical professionals, was the calm reasonable kind. It was right to be careful, practice social distancing, wash hands frequently and wear a mask. That message was typically drowned out by the breathless, panicky pandemic warnings seen on the news.

 

We got the daily numbers of cases and deaths. We watched stories of people hoarding Purell, toilet paper and water. During the first week of the 15 days of voluntary lockdown, there were a shortage of coconut water and cellphone videos of fights in grocery stores over paper goods! Even before the disease got to the US, diners shunned Chinese restaurants. Then we were asked to stay in and practice social distancing, but some college students on spring break and others couldn’t be bothered. Today’s fun and freedom took precedence over the possible spread of the disease tomorrow or in a few weeks.

 

On the first Monday that the schools closed to protect students, I went to my local grocery store to pick up a prescription. It was overrun with parents who brought their school-aged children shopping. Did they think a good activity to keep them “isolated” and protected was a family shopping trip?

 

Day 12 brought this from CBS News: “Egg prices triple in 3 weeks amid coronavirus panic shopping.” This wasn’t price gouging; it was a genuine shortage. At the same time the price of regular gasoline dropped to around two dollars a gallon, also a result of supply and demand. Most people were driving much less and, for some reason, stocking up on eggs. Only the first makes logical sense. The CBS headline got it right, calling the run on hand sanitizer, paper products, bottled water and eggs “panic buying.”

 

Politicians and media commentators capitalize on this tendency toward fear and panic, encouraging the same reaction to win elections on one hand or to keep ratings up on the other. It has gotten progressively worse. Manufactured fear quickly turns to anger, then to hatred and to more fear. It makes people easier to control. Thus, politicians count on citizens leaving their brains outside the polling place and voting based on fear and hatred while the media counts on them to be glued to the TV for the next shocking update. Since we fail to remain calm and rational, we no longer receive calm, rational messages.

 

The same kind of "thinking" applies to everyday situations as technology gets more and more sophisticated and the people using it don't. We discover nuclear power and use it for bombs and submarines: but try to use it to produce pollution-free electric power and NO! No one can be serious about climate change and not be a advocate for nuclear power. Chlorine gas is deadly; chlorine in a swimming pool is safe. Nuclear bombs are deadly; nuclear power plants are safe. But the opposition is led by politicians and activists who are either well intentioned and ignorant or who have a financial interest in alternative energy sources. Regardless, they use fear and panic to sell their position, and it works.

 

The internet and cell phones allow rapid communications and information, but they lead to a lack of privacy, more sophisticated scams, cyber-bullying, targeted marketing for legitimate and bogus products, a mindset of finding people guilty before evidence is submitted and without a hearing. This technology which has so many positive applications, is used to incite riots and demonstrations and to spread misinformation and whacko theories.

 

We have more food, and people are overeating. We have more prosperity, and people are going broke. We have more leisure, and people are more stressed. We vote based on fear and hatred. We never calm down to think things through. That’s the America we live in.

Pet “Owners” Beware!

Last Friday’s Flashback explained how everyone gets upset when corporations and interest groups employ lobbyists to influence legislation, yet everyone is usually silent or supportive of protests and movements with the similar intentions, especially when they focus on the rights of the underprivileged or oppressed -- even if they are not human. 

 

Politicians cater to these movements, as businesses try to garner favor by caving to their demands. Both worry less about the small percentage with the issue than with their champions who latch on to the cause to show everyone else how compassionate and virtuous they are. Hence, tiny minorities exert disproportionate political and economic pressure. 

 

This dynamic comes up everywhere: in sports, fast food restaurants and grocery stores. They can’t say some things, and the things they sell must have favorable labels. Few have the guts to stand up to the pressure. A friend related that her church lists inclusiveness in their mission statement, but that was not good enough. They must also have a welcoming statement as a supplement to it – apparently you can never be inclusive enough! 

 

Some consider themselves “woke” by giving these movements credibility, while others wrongly shrug them off. They gradually creep into society almost unnoticed while we nap! 

 

In light of this, an article from the Guardian addresses a potential trend that should distress many. The headline runs: “Should we stop keeping pets? Why more and more ethicists say yes.” 

The suggestion that keeping pets is somehow immoral is backed by a mixture of both rational and emotional arguments. First they state, “recent research into animals’ emotional lives has cast doubt on the ethics of petkeeping.” The author of a 2015 book, Run, Spot, Run, argues against pet ownership in that it “denies animals the right of self-determination. Ultimately, we bring them into our lives because we want them, then we dictate what they eat, where they live, how they behave, how they look, even whether they get to keep their sex organs.” When people tire of their pets or can’t afford them, they simply drop them at a shelter or abandon them. Experts in the new field of anthrozoology argue that this is all a form of cruelty. 

 

When people think of their pet as part of their family – and it’s getting increasingly common to hear neighbors and advertisers use terms like “furry children” or “pet parents” – it further raises moral and ethical questions. “The logical consequence is that the more we attribute them with these characteristics, the less right we have to control every single aspect of their lives,” say the experts.

 

Meanwhile, animal advocacy groups are working to change the term owner to guardian in places like Boulder City, CO, San Francisco and Marin County, CA, Rhode Island and other places around the world. This simple change may have both ethical and legal ramifications.

 

Institutions accused of exploiting animals, such as the circus, have come under fire. Animal rights activists claimed victory when Ringling Bros Circus closed. Now the pressure shifts to calls to end, or at least rethink, zoos.

 

A related trend is the switch to vegetarian and vegan diets, not only for health reasons, but for ethical reasons as well. “Veganism is up over 300% in the past 15 years” to almost 10 million in the US. What pressure will come from these groups? Will they be the first to go pet-free for ethical reasons and then begin a campaign to get the rest to follow?

 

Finally, claims that keeping pets is healthy are also under attack. A Finnish study of over 21,000 found cholesterol issues, other cardiovascular health problems and BMI problems associated with pet ownership. “Depression, panic attacks, migraine, and rheumatoid arthritis were more often associated with pet ownership among women. The associations of somatic diseases with pet ownership were more common among aging people, whereas psychiatric symptoms and diseases were more apparent among young people.”

 

Although two-thirds of American households have pets, mostly dogs, cats or fish, be alert for pleas about domination and cruelty, that they are sentient beings with more rights to freedom than the average household can provide. These new norms don’t just happen; they evolve, little by little, creeping into society. And it only takes a small minority with powerful PR to start the ball rolling. (Who would have thought 20 years ago that there would be controversy about listing only M or F on a driver’s license?)

Flashback – A Different Kind of Lobbying

This 2016 entry was prescient, especially in light of current events with so many organizations caving to the dictates of various activists and pressure groups. A small number of those actually aggrieved pick up support from followers motivated by a need to feel relevant and morally superior. With these dupes in tow, tiny minorities exert disproportionate political and economic pressure.

Here are the thoughts from four years ago:

[Political lobbyists are the target of a lot of disapproval, and deservedly so. Big corporations, unions and  interest groups pay them to persuade lawmakers to pass laws or propose regulations that favor them.  They contend that these activities keep lawmakers informed on the subtleties of certain industries to reduce the number of unintended consequences, because Congress cannot be experts on everything.

On the other hand, most of the population has the impression that these meetings and lunches are little more than legalized bribes for the rich to disproportionately influence government, an attempt to bring “government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.” The auto industry and banks get their bailouts. The military is given weapons they haven’t requested and don’t want. In short, to lobby is to try to get your way without regard to what others want or what is best for the country.

But there are other activities almost the same as lobbying that most people either ignore or consider healthy. This came to mind when I saw a news story from England, but the type of behavior is certainly not foreign to Americans. In fact it’s quite common.

The controversy arose over the new five-pound note. When vegans and vegetarians discovered that the new tougher and more waterproof bill was made from a plastic polymer containing small amounts of tallow, derived from animal waste products, they took to social media demanding a change. They called the use of even a small amount of animal products disgusting. Their rights were being trampled. Since they were not going to eat the pocket money and the contents were by-products of a food production process, stuff that would be thrown away, it’s hard to see how any harm was done. It’s not like more animals were being slaughtered. Yet some circulated a petition, gathering over 40,000 signatures, demanding that the contents be changed.

It’s so easy to click a box or sign an online petition. And you get to feel good about yourself for caring about an issue that’s important to a minority. You get to stick up for the underdogs, the victims, people whose beliefs were not considered when the government tried to make their paper money more durable.  But 40,000 signatures represent less than one-tenth of one percent of the UK population and only about 3% report being vegetarian. Does this make a difference?

This behavior is repeated nearly daily in America. People will protest slights against groups they aren’t members of. The protests are based on the theory that if they can get a large enough turnout and enough press coverage, they can influence national, state and local policy. The lure is the same – be a savior, do the noble thing, occupy the moral high ground; feel good about yourself for defending the rights of the victims and the marginalized, even if those rights never existed before and in some cases where the victims aren’t even human. That’s how they get huge, vocal crowds or thousands of signatures when the issues affect only a few. (What's worse, the claims are often based on bad science, a warped understanding of history or emotional appeals.)

We have seen this mindset recently protesting a pipeline in North Dakota, defending a mountain lion that was killing cattle in California, supporting workers who took on obligations without the necessary financial resources and solving a bathroom problem that few knew existed. This is all about pressure on lawmakers. Adults throw a group tantrum to get attention.

It’s also so easy to vote, as the people in Massachusetts did to require that chickens and pigs live in larger cages. Those in favor of happier chickens spent almost $5 million on small demonstrations and other means to publicize the animals' need for more comfortable accommodations. Those arguing that such changes would raise the prices of eggs and bacon, hitting the poor especially hard, could only raise $300,000 to try to make their point. The chickens won and the humans lost, because the emotional appeal of reducing what was portrayed as suffering for the animals drowned out the appeal of helping the poor afford food. So voters went home from the polls feeling smug about making a difference.

Some of these causes are worthy of attention; many are trivial. But it's exactly the same outcome as traditional lobbying. Based on the theories that past behavior predicts future behavior and that behavior rewarded is behavior repeated, I predict that the future will yield more of this free lobbying.  Lawmakers will feel pressure from all sides, as every special interest exerts as much pressure as they can, if not through monetary donations, then by demonstrating in the streets and on social media. Those groups always attract supporters with the promise of feeling fulfilled, compassionate and morally superior.

Is this different kind of lobbying any healthier for the country than the first? We will see.]

That was my feeling in 2016. It has (as I predicted) escalated as activities in Seattle, Minneapolis, Kenosha, Portland, Washington DC and elsewhere are portrayed as peaceful protests despite vandalism, looting and rioting. But beware that the latest protests may mimic a more sinister movement.

 

Consider this news from the UK: A British-Indian Muslim convert, skipped bail in 2014 to join ISIS in Syria. He wrote later online: “When we descend on the streets of London, Paris and Washington the taste will be far bitterer, because not only will we spill your blood, but we will also demolish your statues, erase your history and, most painfully, convert your children who will then go on to champion our name and curse their forefathers.”

Flashback – Rights

Here are some ideas about our constitutional rights from an entry four years ago. The same problematic behaviors have been even more evident since then. 

[Thinking about how people behave toward the rights of others lately can become very confusing.

About six weeks ago leading up to the [2016] election, there was quite a bit of talk about exercising your right to vote. Public service ads appeared on TV about how important it was to vote and how your vote made a difference. As is usually the case around election time, some volunteers worked with car pools and vans to make sure all voters were able to get to the polls. Some continued to subscribe to the argument that requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls was a burden and discriminatory. In short, many people came together in an effort to make it as easy as possible for everyone interested to exercise their right to vote.

We also have a right to bear arms, yet I have seen no efforts to make it as easy as possible to buy a gun. In fact the opposite is true. Exercising this right is burdened by several requirements: background check, waiting period, etc. Where are the people who will drive me to the gun show or the firing range if I have trouble getting there on my own? – The idea of this seems silly. There aren’t television ads encouraging people to exercise this right, and most comments are to the contrary. Two rights receive opposite reactions.

We also have a right to trial by jury and to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be a right everyone is in favor of for themselves, but objects to for others. If law enforcement or courts do not do what citizens think they should have done, based on knowledge of the case picked up from the news or social media, the protesters begin demanding “justice.” Sometimes they even ignore the crime victim’s or their family’s pleas for calm and patience as the process plays out.  

We also have a right to free speech. Supposedly you can say what you want to without repercussions, particularly from the government. But students at various universities protest against the appearance of outside speakers because what they say may be offensive or not correspond with their worldview. Students are supposedly in college to learn. Sometimes their ideas are wrong, and sometimes it’s just educational to understand another’s point of view. Instead, they protest demanding a cancellation of the event, or they attend to heckle the speaker already having made up their minds that the person is evil or offensive. When confronted with the idea of freedom of speech, they smugly argue that the First Amendment only applies to government interference.

It has gotten to the point where a few universities have adopted the Chicago Principle, originated at the University of Chicago. It holds that if the speech or written statement is legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, it must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. This action tries to move the focus from some vague notion of offense or anticipated offense to one of learning.

And it’s not just students. Society bans the use of certain words by certain people, and they can only refer to them by their initials, even when discussing the word itself. Many people feel they must consider their word choice very carefully for fear of committing an inadvertent offense or micro-aggression. If you refer to America as a melting pot, you are demeaning someone’s heritage and traditions. If you refer to our Forefathers, you are subjugating half the population. And on it goes. Political rallies have become scenes of name-calling and accusations rather than of debate and the post-rally walk to the car features fighting in the streets. 

Critical thinking leads to the conclusion that we don’t treat rights the same. Some are encouraged, some defended, some ignored, some opposed and some applied selectively. Isn’t that worth considering?]

Flashback – Does Luck Have a Half-life?

This takes us back almost seven years to the minimum wage protests at fast food restaurants. The question is whether people learn to change behavior when they are bailed out from predictable consequences. I have long argued that the reason you can’t raise a family on the minimum wage is that no one should start a family if they can only get a minimum wage job. Bad luck is not forever.

 

People who caught a bad break certainly should be helped, but behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Irresponsibility rewarded breeds more. Over the past seven years a lot of irresponsibility has been rewarded. Here are my 2013 comments:

[More protests are breaking out around the plight of fast food workers unable to survive on the minimum wage. They are demanding a wage increase to $15 an hour. The news has presented the arguments pro and con, but have usually given more time to the protesters, sometimes, as in this CBS piece, picking out one as a kind of “poster child” for the cause. The hidden problem is that minimum wage, unemployment extensions, food stamps and other proposed government solutions ignore behavioral factors.

A primary argument in favor of this issue tells us that all these people are less fortunate, that they need a helping hand to get back on their feet, that "there, but for the grace of God,” go we. They completely ignore well-known wisdom that behavior has consequences. We are presented with the argument that every one of these fast food workers is merely down on his luck or a victim of a bad economy, and that the situation has nothing to do with consequences of behavior. This unbelievable scenario is widely accepted by otherwise rational people. The media and many politicians never challenge it.

This leads to an interesting comparison: In other circumstances, how do caring people really act? If your teenage son sits on the sofa all day playing videogames, ignoring homework and refusing to do his chores, do good parents excuse the behavior and cover for him? Do they pass it off with, “That’s OK; he’s going through a tough time”? Even non-parents know the answer. Good parents will institute consequences for this poor behavior, knowing that if they don’t, life and reality will later institute much harsher consequences. Teenage sons can be very difficult, but good parents anticipate with a pattern of similar, consistent reactions to deal with natural childhood resistance and laxness. That’s how caring people act. They don’t always come to the rescue – behavior that makes the rescuer feel powerful, but often causes long-term harm to the one rescued. When the bad situation is a bad break, sympathy and a leg up are appropriate. If the son is mugged and loses money, parents may reimburse him for the loss. If he loses it gambling, that’s the consequence of bad behavior. Bailing him out is inappropriate, dulls the impact of the consequence and no learning occurs. (For an extreme example see the recent case of "affluenza" in Texas.)

Returning to the case of minimum wage employees, especially those presented by the media and never challenged, we must ask if it was bad luck or consequences that contributed to the situation. If it’s luck, then some temporary help is appropriate, because bad luck does have a kind of half-life or statute of limitations. A little help can turn things around, but caring people do not bail out from consequences. That only fosters more problematic behavior.

Even in these seemingly innocent human-interest stories the determination requires only a few simple questions. Where did those two or three children come from? Where is the father (or fathers)? What contribution is he making? If none, why not? Did the workers finish high school; were drugs ever involved; are they applying for better jobs, are they looking for ways to increase skills, etc., etc.? What is the long-term plan, if any? (CBS later reported that their "poster-child" example turned down promotions more than once because it didn’t fit her preferred personal schedule. Another news story told of a kind social worker repairing at minimum cost the car of a woman who hasn't been able to work in 5 years due to a neck injury. She can't work, but she can drive?!)  

Looking at the situation through the behavioral lens would probably determine that many of these people are not victims. Many are living with the consequences of earlier choices. Should caring people run to bail them out, labeling them all as “less fortunate,” as the compassionistas would have us believe? Not only do they not learn and grow, but the next generation, poised to make the same mistakes, sees no example to discourage them from following the same path. So, the current, non-behavioral approaches, which lump them all into the same category, lead not to solutions but to perpetual problems.]

Libraries As Socialism

I have from time to time heard defenders of socialism use the local library as an example of socialism in practice. The building, utilities, workers and books are paid for mostly by taxes (with some additional funds from books sales and donations). 

Who can say anything bad about the library? It’s available and it’s free. In fact my library’s computer reminds me at checkout how much I have saved by not having to buy the books. 

I am a supporter and big user of my library system. Sometimes I go to the library without anything particular in mind just to pick out an interesting book to read. Sometimes I go with a particular subject in mind and browse through the available books in that section of the stacks. I usually come away with something and never have to pay. (The same can be said of movies on DVD or music, but with everyone streaming, that part of their business has probably fallen off.)

Sometimes, however, I am looking for a particular title that I’ve seen on TV or seen a reference to in my reading. I check the website and the library doesn’t have it. Somebody in charge of ordering books either was not familiar with it or didn’t feel that it should make the cut for what they spend their limited funds on. I have very little control over this centralized decision.

Sometimes when checking the website I do find the book I want, but someone else has it checked out. The computer tells me how many copies they have in the system and where I am on the waiting list should I decide to put the book on hold. I have waited as long as 8 weeks, occasionally longer, for notification that the book is available. I am given 5 days to pick it up during the 60 hours of the week they are open (prior to the shortened COVID hours). Most of those hours are when people are working and kids are in school.

I put up with these inconveniences because getting a particular book to read is not urgent or important to me. The library is fine, but it has its limitations. I can bypass these limitations using available alternatives.

If I really need the book I go the capitalist route – Amazon, for example. I can find almost any book or movie I want on the Internet. I can buy it and download it directly to my phone and begin reading. If the system is working properly, the number of copies available is driven by demand from myself and others rather than by some individual’s taste or guesswork. I can do this 24 hours a day; I never have to wait for another reader to finish and return it. I can mark it up if I choose and can take as long as I want to read it. Because it’s mine, I have that freedom.

Where other services are concerned, such inconveniences are no longer trivial. No one would want to put up with them in important areas like groceries, utilities, transportation, healthcare and many others. 

Why do people in the UK or Canada sometimes have to wait longer for medical procedures? – Because their healthcare is run on the library model. Why do we hear stories of food shortages in places like Venezuela and the former Soviet Union? – Because the food supply is run on the library model. Some central decision maker, not individual consumers voting with their dollars, controls the system. Why does public education in America lag behind so many other countries? – Because as parents become more and more disengaged, it moves closer to the library model where central decision makers dictate methods and judge outcomes.

Most areas run by the government or where the government gets involved are the the epitome of inefficiency: student loans, home mortgages, the court system, the DMV, the post office, Amtrak, and public education (where teachers keep asking to be paid more to teach fewer students with questionable results).

Healthcare in America is already too much like the library model. There is no real competition, and the consumer is separated from the provider by an insurance middleman. So everyone rightly complains about it.

I love libraries, but I wouldn’t want to depend on them or anything like them for the necessities of life. 

Flashback – Critical Thinking

The idea behind the flashbacks on Fridays is to review and update some thoughts and examples from the past. These examples remain valid because behavior has changed very little over the years. We are not learning from our mistakes.

 

The main difference in 2020 is that almost every subject quickly becomes political with people taking sides. The Real Solutions are not political. They come from people changing their personal consequences by improved choices using the Five Dimensions. As these individual improvements accumulate, America moves in the right direction. The solutions come from us and not from the government, but try telling someone that in an election year! 

 

Here from almost nine years ago are some thoughts on critical thinking.

[Around the time of the Civil War, John Stuart Mill wrote essays in opposition to slavery and in favor of women’s rights. In both cases he recognized the difficulty of persuading people to change their minds when their conviction was based on feelings rather than logic – thinking with their hearts instead of their brains. Near the beginning of “The Subjection of Women” he writes: “So long as opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses instability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, … the more persuaded adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, … always throwing up fresh entrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old.” In other words, it’s tough to get people to change their mind when their opinion is not based on logic. The more you talk, the deeper they dig in to protect long-held beliefs.  

We see this behavior almost daily. We are warned to avoid subjects of religion and politics in social conversations. They lead to no resolution, instead causing others to protect their turf.

This is why many of my critical thinking arguments will fall on deaf ears. Considering, though, the waste, misdirection and sometimes danger that result from individual and societal forays down these blind alleys of feeling-based decisions, I continue.

There are two categories of critical thinking. The first involves paying closer attention, for example, recognizing the popular advertising pitch of “save up to 50% or more” as virtually meaningless. Literally it means: maybe saving some undefined amount that can be less or more than 50%. Likewise, how can all car insurance companies save you (up to) $300 when you switch? They all say so. One even claims that  80% of those who switched saved money - but doesn't mention the 20% dumb enough to switch anyway. These examples, and many others, just take some basic questioning.

The second category hits on subjects treated almost as religious beliefs. When I warn of the dangers of dietary supplements, the ineffectiveness of performance bracelets, or that all-natural does not necessarily mean healthier, I know there are a certain number of readers who will dig in, ignoring examples, evidence and explanations, knowing in their hearts that they are doing the right thing, resisting rather than even considering an alternative point of view. For some the ideas of green and sustainable are nearly sacred. They will not bat an eye when told that a particular wind turbine, for example, saves enough coal-powered energy to pay for itself in 150 years, but has a life expectancy of only 50 years! “But, but, but it’s green! It must be good. It’s the direction we need to be moving!”  Logic is lost in feelings and further argument leads only to increased resistance.

Nevertheless, I will continue to cite examples and drive the message of critical thinking. Making good decisions most of the time is essential for our success, both as individuals and as a society.]

Why Do They Bother?

I often wonder about news agencies. They publish flashy headlines, but the details later in the stories turn out to be much less interesting or conclusive. Here is a recent example from CNN health: “People with blood type O may have lower risk of Covid-19 infection and severe illness, two new studies suggest.” (At least citing two studies is better than their frequent practice of citing one unnamed source in their political news, but let's get into it.) 

 

The studies concluded, “People with blood type O may be less vulnerable to Covid-19 and have a reduced likelihood of getting severely ill.” To compound the weakness of this conclusion that they “may be less vulnerable” they add a disclaimer that “Experts say more research is needed.”

 

What we know so far, provided we read the headline carefully, is that something “may be” going on, and even if true, the connection is not clear.

 

A study from Denmark found that of a sample of 7,422 people who tested positive, 38.4% were blood type O, whereas 41.7% of a separate non-tested group of the 2.2 million Danish people has that blood type. The article doesn’t explain where that 2.2 million came from. The population of Denmark is about 5.8 million. Were those 2.2 million representative of the entire population?

 

It is likely the results were statistically significant or they would not have been published. Still, statistical significance is overrated, and the difference between 41.7% and 38.4% does not seem to be of any practical significance to a CNN audience. 

 

The difference for Danes with type A blood goes in the opposite direction, 44.4% ill compared to 42.4% of the population. But the Type O and Type A does not account for everyone, only 84.1%. The remaining type B and AB people must comprise 15.9% of the population and account for 17.2% of the cases, which is actually proportionally higher than the type A cases. Why they reported what they did, the way they did, is puzzling.

 

The second, a Canadian study, looked at a much smaller sample, only 95 critically ill patients. Of them, 84% of those with blood type A or AB required ventilators compared to 61% of type O or B. They didn’t make the same comparisons under the same conditions as the Danish study. The only common finding was the better performance of blood type O.

 

The final conclusion of the CNN article is that no one should worry and no one should become complacent. Blood type does not supersede other risk factors. The information is useful only to researchers in this narrow field of trying to discover a link between blood type and COVID susceptibility or seriousness. They “don't yet know what mechanism could explain the link” or if a link exists.

 

The fact that they were published in a journal called Blood Advances reinforces how narrow the focus for the studies was. It wasn’t really intended for the general public. Which brings me back to my original question. Why do they bother? 

 

Not to pick on CNN. The same useless information appeared in Forbes, NBC, UPI Health News, Science Focus and others. The pressure to fill airtime and Internet space must be overwhelming. We get such news with its exciting headlines whether it adds any value to our daily lives or not.

Flashback – (Mis)understanding Insurance

If they learn economics in journalism school, they must quickly forget everything upon graduation. Furthermore, when the facts don't make a compelling story, they resort to the usual tactic of trying to make stories fit their worldview or make things look scarier than they are. Here is a prime example I gave in December 2016.

[As I was reading the transcript of Scott Pelley’s "60 Minutes" interview with House Speaker Paul Ryan, I noticed that he seemed uninterested in hard news or in-depth information so much as he was interested in tripping up the Speaker, trying to put him in a position of disagreeing with his new boss, making one or the other of them look bad, or uncovering something potentially embarrassing.

He asked how often the two speak on the phone and who initiates the conversation. The answers were almost daily and both. No news there. How does he answer the phone? “He doesn’t say, ‘This is the president-elect?’” No. “Have you told him being president is not being CEO of the United States, that the Congress is going to have a say?” 

Instead of asking how the two got together after a contentious election, he asked, “Who apologized to whom?” It’s clear by now that Pelley has no liking or respect for Donald Trump, thinks he is a bully and a racist, and is searching for evidence to back up his views. Better yet, he would like to get Ryan to agree on any point that might make it seem he is of the same opinion.

The silliness and self-serving finally comes to a close, and Pelley asks a number of questions about policy issues. Soon he gets to the details about possible changes to Obamacare and the sniping continues. At one point Pelley says “And women will pay the same as men? That didn’t used to be the case.” This is a question designed to get an answer that will incite outrage. He is trying to get some admission of Republican bias against women, but showing in the process that he does not understand how insurance works and counting on the fact that many Americans don’t either.

Insurance usually works by assessing the risk and charging premiums accordingly. If you have homeowner’s insurance you expect a discount for having a working alarm system. Teen drivers are generally less safe than more experienced drivers, but boys have more accidents than girls. Auto insurance for a young man 16-25 is higher. There is no outrage there. It’s not unusual for companies to charge smokers more for their health insurance benefits. Owners of cars with higher repair costs pay higher premiums. Older cars are cheaper to insure due to the lower replacement cost. Those who don’t drive as many miles sometimes pay lower premiums. Costs of auto and homeowners insurance vary by what part of the country and by the size of the town or city you live in. And since women outlive men and take fewer chances, they pay less for life insurance. Older people pay more, as do those who participate in dangerous hobbies like skydiving or juggling chainsaws.

This all happens without a stir. Everyone seems to understand that certain classes of people are at a higher risk for either the frequency or the size of insurance claims. Hence they should pay more. The ones in the classes with higher premiums don’t like it, but they pay. So why would people be upset that some women, especially those of childbearing age, might have to pay more? That “used to be the case” and it didn’t have anything to do with prejudice or victimization.

Apparently the government and some group of citizens have now decided that charging women more for health insurance can be explained only by prejudice. Everyone must purchase the same insurance for the same cost or there will be an uproar. And Scott Pelley and others in his profession are more than happy to incite and later fan the flames of that uproar, because it makes their job of reporting the news so much easier. Their job is not to inform or to educate; their job is to attract views and clicks. Nothing does that better than a good demonstration or protest, even those grounded in fundamental misunderstanding.]

P.S. I have often said that problems with healthcare costs must be solved on the basis of costs, not by tinkering with health insurance, but that’s for another discussion.

Flashback – Coke and Pepsi Warnings

Much as the news media tries to upset us at every turn and on every subject, we don’t have time or the energy to be afraid of everything. That’s where perspective and critical thinking come in.

 

The following entry from 2012 gives a couple of examples of how the news media plays to our emotions, not only to enhance their profits, but often hoping we will take the bait and panic. It’s a power play, pure and simple, to push the public in a desired direction. If enough people back a belief, whether it's true or false, the government steps in with more regulations.

[One day I overheard discussion of a news item about using radiation to kill bacteria on vegetables. A colleague asked the rhetorical question, “Who would buy that?” I told her that I had done some reading on the subject recently and the irradiated vegetables were perfectly safe to eat. In fact, those vegetables had been exposed to radiation for at least half of the time they were growing and couldn’t have grown without it. It’s called sunlight. But people don’t think of sunlight as radiation. They don’t consider cellphone signals as radiation (except when falsely warned about cancer dangers). Radiation is thought to be always bad and dangerous – no distinction is made between harmless and dangerous. That would take some critical thinking.

People also fear carcinogens. If it might cause cancer, regardless of the conditions or dosage level, it’s bad. But so many things have been shown to cause cancer (including good-old sunlight, by the way) that comedians joke about it. There are even substances that were once considered dangerous but have earned a reprieve. It seems you can hardly move without bumping into something that at one time or another wasn’t considered deadly.

Now we get a recent news article about a substance in Coke and Pepsi coloring being banned in California because it caused cancer in lab animals. Later in the article it states that humans would have to drink over one thousand cans per day to reach the dosage level given to the rodents. Of course, if you tried to drink that much in a day the amount of water would kill you long before you reached the danger point for developing cancer. (Yes, you can overdose on water!) 

Perspective is about moderation, understanding that you can keep trying to make your food, your beverages and your environment purer but you reach a point where an extra dollar of effort yields pennies in benefit, and finally a point where an extra dollar of effort yields no benefit at all. Yet there are still those with so little perspective and no understanding of science who insist that the water and the air are never clean enough (and the soda never pure enough). Then it’s left to politicians and judges, not scientists, to sort it out.  And who pays any additional costs? – you guessed it!]

MSG and Elections

Throughout the years under a number of different topics, I have made the point that people tend to strongly hold onto ideas, whether they are true or false. They may have heard them repeatedly, heard them from an authoritative source or just liked the idea because it reinforced their favorite biases. In any case, ideas tend to stick.

 

Just a few weeks ago I reran a flashback about the misconception that electric power lines are health hazards. This idea was passed around by the news media back in the 1980s based on flimsy evidence. The idea stuck despite it being firmly disproved within ten years. People still believe it today.

 

In "More Secrets to a Longer Life" on September 28, I discussed the myth that vitamin C reduces the duration and intensity of a head cold. Companies take advantage of this decades-long misconception, making money by offering vitamin C in several forms. I also made reference to other persistent misconceptions: the power of cranberry juice to treat urinary problems; that cutting back on fat is the key to a healthier lifestyle; and the exaggerated benefits of antioxidants.

In light of that, I read some interesting information about monosodium glutamate (MSG) in Bill Bryson’s book, The Body. Here is part of the first paragraph on page 106:

MSG has had a hard time of it in the West since1968 when The New England Journal of Medicine published a letter – not an article or a study, but simply a letter – from a doctor noting that he sometimes felt vaguely unwell after eating in Chinese restaurants and wondered if it was the MSG added to the food that was responsible. The headline on the letter was “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome,” and from this small beginning it became fixed in people’s minds that MSG was a kind of toxin. In fact, it isn’t.

Further investigation bears this out. From the MSG Fact Sheet: “The scientific research supporting the safety and benefits of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is extensive.”

Another source, the Healthline website states, “While some people assert that the glutamate from MSG can act as an excitotoxin, leading to the destruction of nerve cells, no human studies support this.”

After discussing common complaints, the Mayo Clinic summarizes, “However, researchers have found no definitive evidence of a link between MSG and these [reported] symptoms.”

 

There is no scientific or medical evidence, yet people still report symptoms because they heard it and believe it.

 

What does this have to do with elections? 

 

If you can expose voters to enough misrepresentations, quotations taken out of context, made up stories and unfounded accusations against an opponent and get them to buy it, why not say them over and over and arrange for others to repeat them? Most people don’t do the research/critical thinking; they hear it and it sticks, especially if their mind is already made up. (Right now people on each side are thinking I am talking only about lies spread by the other side!)

 

Politicians and biased news organizations (aren't they all?) do it because it works. And the tactic continues to get more intense. The underlying cause is that voters let them get away with it. They get so stirred up by the "news" that doing cool, critical thinking becomes more difficult than usual, and every new lie stirs them up more. 

 

It reminds me of a casual definition to explain differences in drama: comedy is when the protagonists get what they want; tragedy is when they get what they deserve. By passively following along, buying all of the drama served up by politicians, the media and partisans on social media instead of critically challenging the talking points; Americans will continue to get the leaders and the government they deserve. And it will be a tragedy.

Flashback – Consumer Protection Gone Crazy

Back in 2011 I explained how new legislation regarding credit cards led to the companies increasing fees and interest rates. More recently, about a year ago, I once again emphasized how well intentioned consumer protection laws often have unintended consequences. Here is that entry from August 23 of last year.

[Last time I wrote about a lawmaker introducing a bill to protect Americans from Internet addiction, a condition that has no formal definition or diagnosis. Whenever a problem or “epidemic” arises, someone in power decides that there is a government solution to change the conditions or behavior. (Even when the government was the source of the problem.)

People are not trusted to solve their own problems, often because they don't. In the end everyone loses some freedom because of the bad decisions of a few. It takes critical thinking to identify the root of the problem and personal responsibility to own the solution instead of passing it off to a higher power.

This dynamic was reinforced a few days ago when a package arrived from one of those catalogs that frequently appear in the mailbox. In the package was a gift pen, similar to those used by various companies as promotional items. It was an ordinary retractable ballpoint similar to those from a dentist’s office or a job fair but with one difference. It came in a plastic sleeve with the words, “WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm” followed by a web address.

The address led to the California Proposition 65 page. “The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is establishing this website to provide the public with information on chemicals, products and locations often associated with Proposition 65 warnings.  These warnings inform Californians about their exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” 

Notice that the above statement reads, “cause cancer” not “may cause cancer,” implying that they have studies to definitively prove a direct causal link. Since the list includes over 900 chemicals, that is a doubtful assertion. Looking at one random example: “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide DEA) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen, which identifies this chemical as possibly carcinogenic to humans."[Emphasis added] Apparently it only takes possibly to make the list. 

The full list includes a large number of arcane-sounding chemicals, e.g., Amikacin Sulfate and Zalcitabine, but it also includes alcoholic beverages, aspirin, tobacco smoke, nicotine and oral contraceptives.  

How helpful is this? Is tobacco smoke or nicotine a surprise? Why do Californians need the information and not everyone else? Coffee contains acrylamide, which is on the list, so last year a judge decided, "coffee sellers in the state should have to post cancer warnings.” But in “2016, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization moved coffee off its ‘possible carcinogen’ list.”

This isn’t science; it’s judges and lawmakers deciding what should or should not be on a list. It’s “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” gone crazy. People don’t have time to be careful about 900 chemicals and all the products they go into. I have no idea which part of the promotional pen I should worry about or how it might hurt me. Tanning beds and sunlight are not on the list only because they are not chemicals. The situation is so bad that my seven-year-old granddaughter upon returning from a vacation in San Diego commented about how silly it was seeing all the warning signs everywhere coffee was sold.

Not only is this not helpful, it adds cost. The extra warning labels and signs cost money. It is costly to reformulate products to avoid having to post warnings, or worse, to avoid the threat from lawyers, “some of whose businesses are built entirely on filing Proposition 65 lawsuits” on behalf of “straw man plaintiffs." The cost of these nuisance consequences comes back on all of us. (Economic understanding reminds us there is no magic money tree to make up the difference. It all gets passed along to the end consumer.)

Does the list ever shrink or become reasonable, or do we get to the point where everything needs a progressively more meaningless label? I’m sure many people thought this was a great idea back in 1986 not realizing that they may be creating a monster.]

Columbus Day vs. Indigenous Peoples' Day

It is easy to see why Columbus is considered a fool and a scoundrel. He miscalculated the distance from Europe to Asia. He brought new diseases to the Americas, or at least led the way so others could spread those diseases. After he arrived, he murdered and plundered, or at least led the way so others could do the murdering and plundering.

 

If he had not discovered America someone else would have done so later, likely with the same results. The only difference would be in the names of some streets and cities. It has become very popular to criticize figures from the past by applying today’s knowledge, values and standards of behavior, but apparently that’s where we are. 

 

However, if we are going to hold Columbus accountable, it’s only fair to take a closer look at the suggested alternative holiday name and hold those people to similar standards.

 

Some facts come from this publication from the University of Arizona. “Indigenous populations engaged in warfare and ritual violence long before European contact.” They were not the innocent, peace-loving people of recent depictions.

Another source continues, “Contemporary accounts from both European and Indigenous sources reveal that the pre-Columbian world was a place where slavery, trafficking, sexual exploitation, oppression, and even genocide was commonplace prior to any European contact.”

A Harvard University site includes a history of slavery by indigenous people. “Slavery existed in North America long before the first Africans arrived at Jamestown in 1619. For centuries, from the pre-Columbian era through the 1840s, Native Americans took prisoners of war and killed, adopted, or enslaved them.

 

After the arrival of European settlers, such behavior continued. “Comanche were specialists in torture, they were also the most ferocious and successful warriors — indeed, they became known as ‘Lords of the Plains’.” They are described as “imperialist and genocidal” relative to both neighboring tribes and white settlers. “When they first migrated to the great plains of the American South in the late 18th century from the Rocky Mountains, not only did they achieve dominance over the tribes there, they almost exterminated the Apaches.”

 

The Smithsonian Magazine tells of the practice of black slavery by the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole tribes. “The Five Civilized Tribes were deeply committed to slavery, established their own racialized black codes, immediately reestablished slavery when they arrived in Indian territory [after forced resettlement], rebuilt their nations with slave labor, crushed slave rebellions, and enthusiastically sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War.” One native chief in Mississippi owned a plantation of “15,000 acres” and had “400 enslaved Africans under his dominion.”

 

Can we hold all Native Americans responsible for the brutality and mistakes of a very few and cancel their holiday, when most of them were just trying to live their lives as best as they could? That doesn’t seem fair, but it’s exactly the same treatment the police have been getting lately. Not to do so smacks of selective outrage.

 

As a solution we might take page from the British calendar and change the name to October Bank Holiday – except don’t get me started on those evil bankers!

Flashback – Plastic Straws

I originally called this one "How Much We Take On Faith." At the time it was clear that many information sources are not reliable, a notion reconfirmed by many experiences since then. Politicians, advocates and pundits confidently make assertions to support their agendas. We can never tell what is true, what is pure fantasy, or how much is just so much hot air. 

 

Plastic straw mandates are examples of many symbolic acts. Using bad data or no data, authorities try to fool us, and probably themselves, into believing that they are really making a difference. They want to appear caring about all the right things, then garner enough support to pass laws and regulations forcing everyone to comply.

 

Here is the piece from 2018.

[The other day I got into a discussion with a colleague about plastic, which led to a comment about the amount of plastic in the ocean and what a problem it is. My response that only about 1% of the ocean plastic comes from the United States was met with stares of disbelief. Instead of arguing the point with someone who firmly believed the opposite, I offered to send references. The next day I emailed an explanation of the situation from a number of reputable sources.

From National Geographic in a story about the large accumulation of waste in the Pacific: "Microplastics make up 94 percent of an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic in the patch. But that only amounts to eight percent of the total tonnage. As it turns out, of the 79,000 metric tons of plastic in the patch, most of it is abandoned fishing gear—not plastic bottles or packaging drawing headlines today."

My next stop was a Bloomberg article with a sub headline of: “Skipping straws may be hip. But there are much better ways to fight pollution.” They first point out that the original estimate, the one activists and news media cite with confidence, that Americans use 500 million straws per day is based on highly dubious data that came from a small survey by a nine-year-old for a grade school science project. Then it was spread without any attempt to verify it by those who wanted to emphasize the problem. "Similarly, two Australian scientists estimate that there are up to 8.3 billion plastic straws scattered on global coastlines. Yet even if all those straws were suddenly washed into the sea, they'd account for about .03 percent of the 8 million metric tons of plastics estimated to enter the oceans in a given year.” So what we have been told about straws being the problem is a gross exaggeration.

A Science report on marine pollution verifies exactly what I was saying with a table on their site,  Table 1 titled: “Waste estimates for 2010 for the top 20 countries ranked by mass of mismanaged plastic waste (in units of millions of metric tons per year).” The US is listed at the bottom of the table with a contribution of .09% – less than one percent. That same information is repeated in pie charts on other sites.

So all this fuss about banning straws is bogus. It is a feel-good exercise that grows because so few people take the time to do the research. Ocean pollution is a problem, but the advocates and politicians are misinformed and are passing along that poor information to the rest of us – and we are buying it.

This and many other trends and movements have become their own religions. They depend on blind faith. The preachers stand up and confidently make ignorant and absurd allegations about chemicals, food safety, pollution, economics and a host of other subjects. The general population takes it on faith, chanting “amen” in all the right places. This leads to poor policies and results in those responsible for poor policies being reelected on the basis of making their followers feel good about themselves, about how pure they are, about how caring they are. It’s much more about ego and self esteem than science or actually saving the planet.

In reality these policies deliver little or no benefit and may have unknown side effects or unforeseen consequences. They are at best a waste of time. Critical thinking is the answer, but no one wants to deal with facts or reality.] Feeling good is more important.