We Are All Doomed

It’s not nuclear war, population explosion, the Chinese economy or Russian hackers, not from Iran joining North Korea as an irresponsible nuclear power. Forget climate change or which party is in power. We are doomed instead by a disregard for the five dimensions, which leads to poor individual and societal decisions yielding unfavorable consequences. Just look around.

 

In the past the same technologies endured for centuries. Sons did the same work as their fathers and grandfathers. The lot of children was the same as that of their parents. Today, jobs disappear or change radically on a regular basis as new technologies require new skills and habits.

 

Computers moved from occupying a room to a desk to a lap to a pocket in less than 40 years. As each new modern convenience arrives, the time to adapt becomes shorter and shorter. We are doomed because Americans seem unable to use that new power wisely, partially because, as Stephen Hawking put it, “we still have the instincts…that we had in the caveman days.” 

 

Suppose a time traveler told Congress in 1900, “The automobile looks promising, but in a hundred years, building and maintaining roads will cost $150 billion annually. Cars will contribute to major environmental problems and lead to millions of unproductive hours in delays and congestion. Annual traffic deaths will surpass 30,000 by 1946, climb to over 50,000 by 1970 and never again fall below 30,000.” Cars would have been banned; we’d still be riding horses.

 

When automobile-related death rates did drop, the change came not from behavior, but technology and regulations: lap belts, shoulder belts, airbags and improved car design. As people felt safer, behavior got sloppier: speeding, texting, forgetting the children in the back seat. Technology brings new miracles every day, as users become more careless and irresponsible.

 

Similarly, electronic communication advanced as email, social media, Zoom and many other tools brought us together more efficiently. But they quickly spawned negative behavior. People fell off cliffs trying to get more impressive photos. Teens challenged others to dangerous stunts and bullied around the clock.

 

Social media became a better way to send anonymous death threats to strangers, to insult and intimidate, to organize mobs, to silence or cancel individuals and get them fired, to boycott companies. Instead of communicating respectfully, we make up our minds without verifying facts and use our position to express hatred toward “the other side.” Being right is more important than having a relationship.

 

Technology gives us more free time, but we spend it virtue signaling or passing along snide comments. On-line fighting, mindless entertainment and superficial interests crowd out substantive problem solving and real communication. Cute pets go viral. A 7-year-old has 17 million followers with 26 billion views of toy reviews to the tune of $22 million per year while big cities have thousands of homeless people on the streets and multiple murders every weekend. 

 

Everyone should be happier, but that’s not the case. Modern conveniences leave Americans time to develop new addictions and imaginary ills. The medical community is complicit, adding new conditions to the list of diagnoses: occupational burnout declared a medical problem by WHO and obesity called a chronic disease by JAMA. People demand comfort animals on airline flights, and college students protest against offensive material and insufficient coddling. People embrace the  victim role rather than expecting to work through their own problems.

 

Stress is rampant. Levels of depression and suicide are up. A new book tells us, “One in five American adults are taking a drug for a psychiatric problem.” In an effort to overcome boredom, we buy so much stuff that the storage industry has new facilities popping up everywhere – then we buy books about how to declutter. 

 

Many serious diseases have been all but wiped out, but some disparage vaccinations and impatiently turn to charlatans selling products based on fairy-tale science: ancient medicine, therapeutic touch, essential oils, homeopathy and other magic potions to cure minor aches and pains. One mother, following social media guidance, fed her sons bleach to cure their autism. The authorities didn't step in because that’s not considered child abuse, but letting kids walk to school or the park unsupervised is.

 

How many Americans could survive the everyday hardships of just a century ago? Living without cell phones seems unbearable. Try giving up cars, indoor plumbing, central heating and electricity. 

 

Each new breakthrough has both benefits and dangers. We take the former for granted and accept the latter as merely a side effect. We bumble along as artificial solutions hide the urgency. 

 

This lax behavior as the world changes around us does not work. The five key dimensions are shunned, considered passé. Don’t understand economic principles; don’t think critically; don’t be disciplined and responsible; and don’t have perspective. New technology and the government will solve everything – until they don’t.

Flashback – Hating the Rich

Millionaires, billionaires and highly paid executives are favorite targets for someone trying to garner support for a new program. We should hate the rich merely because they are rich. The government should take away their money to help the poor. In this stirred-up state of envy no one wants to think about how the anger is selective. Nor do they want to hear how such a move would dampen motivation at all levels while not really solving any problems. 

I pointed this out right before the 2016 election, and nothing has changed since then:

[Maybe hating is too strong a word for it. Maybe being angry or envious is a better description of those feelings, the feelings various politicians and organizations vigorously promote. But since those same organizations and advocacy groups freely use the words “hate” and “haters,” it’s probably not completely unfair. In this case the hating is not only selective, but also difficult to justify.

Here is a graphic that has been going around on social media. It shows the total compensation of health insurance company CEOs. The caption and comments imply that this is the reason for the sharp increase in Obamacare (ACA) premiums for 2017. Let’s take one example and see what’s going on.

Let's not quibble over the fact that the information is three years old or that they calculate daily pay based on 341 days in a year. If these folks have moved on, they were likely replaced by others who were equally well compensated. Instead take the first gentleman, Joseph Swedish as representative.

He is the CEO of WellPoint, which operates Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in 14 states. Here is some information from a CNBC report from 2014. “The company had 37.5 million members at the end of the quarter, up 2 million members from a year earlier.” Apparently he is doing a good job of growing the company and meeting analysts’ expectations. But is his pay driving up premiums?

Take the $17 million shown above and divide by the number of customers, 37.5 million, and get 45 cents per customer. Divide that by 12 to calculate the effect on monthly premiums and we find that if he were paid nothing, each customer might see a 3.8-cent reduction in monthly premiums – 3.8 cents!  (By saving this up for 10 years each customer could afford one trip to Starbucks.)

Maybe it’s the fact that the government forces us to buy health insurance that causes such a negative opinion of these CEOs. By contrast, we never seem to get upset about the amount paid to the Disney CEO or star athletes. We never hear people complaining that the ticket prices would be lower if their favorite quarterback made less money. We give these people our money freely, even line up to do it, in return for a limited amount of entertainment, and they also get rich.

Look at the recent Desert Trip concert in Palm Springs. Most of the 75,000 tickets were gone in less than five hours, with the good seats going for $1599 each. The promoter is expected to gross $160 million for the three-day event, while paying the headliners up to $7 million each (for showing up and playing for a few hours). The LA Times reports that these rock stars from the sixties continue to do very well for themselves. “Since 2000, the Rolling Stones have grossed more than $1.1 billion with their periodic tours, according to Pollstar, the concert-industry-tracking publication. [Paul] McCartney has racked up $761 million, [Pink Floyd’s Roger] Waters has pulled in $592 million, followed by [Bob] Dylan ($293 million), the Who ($200 million) and [Neil] Young ($153 million).”

We love to hate those one-percenters, the people making a lot more money than we do, but the outrage is selective. When it’s Mick Jagger, Bob Dylan, Lady Gaga, Peyton Manning, Rory McIlroy, George Clooney, Tom Cruise, or Oprah, then it’s OK. Making almost $50,000 a day is very impressive, but it pales in comparison to $500,000 - $750,000 for a single speech or an advance on a book in the millions. We love the ones who perform for us and hate the ones who help us pay our doctor bills. Objections to the rich being rich are both selective and difficult to justify.]

The Power of Numbers to Deceive

Large numbers are impressive, so people often fail to put them into perspective. That’s why advertisers and advocates love to use them to get more sales or to garner support for a cause. Examples pop up daily, especially in this age of COVID-19.

 

Every day the local and national news media blast out the latest coronavirus totals. Millions of cases and over one quarter million deaths get our attention. In fact, relative to other causes they are very big numbers. It is a serious problem, but no one reminds us that 15 million is less than five percent of the population. Furthermore, I have never heard a news organization report on the number of people who have recovered. It’s sure to also be in the millions. It seems that people come out on two extremes: they either don’t take it seriously enough or they are unnecessarily terrified of catching it and dying. Perhaps if the news gave a more honest, measured account, more people would have an appropriately moderate reaction.

 

I found another example in a health report. “The Federal Trade Commission is sending 70,142 checks and PayPal payments totaling $3,864,824 to consumers nationwide who bought Quell, a wearable device that supposedly would treat chronic pain throughout the body when placed below the knee.” The company was fined almost $4 million for misrepresenting their product! Consumers who were gullible enough to buy the product will be reimbursed. That’s about $55.10 each for a device that is advertised on sale for $99 – not exactly a money-back guarantee – but the $4 million fine seems impressive.

 

Class action lawsuits are also typical. Chipotle, accused of falsely advertising its food as GMO-free, settled for $6.5 million. After the lawyers took 30%, that left their customers with a claim of $2 per meal with a cap of $30 per household, but it “could be less than this depending on how many claims are made.” Again a big number reduced to peanuts per person.

 

Similarly Johnson & Johnson, a favorite target for lawsuits, was ordered to Pay $6.3 million in the Infant’s Tylenol Settlement. That came out to $2.15 a bottle.

 

The number of home burglaries in 2018 was 685,766, about half of total burglaries (1,230,149), and about half of those happened when people didn’t lock their doors. But when buying a home security system you will hear, “A burglary happens once every 26 seconds.”

When big numbers are spread across many people, it doesn’t add up to very much.

 

In some cases, the news media implies big numbers just in their tone. A couple of years ago they wanted us to believe that school shootings were common, but what happened to school shooting news when the presidential campaigns got into full swing? The problem didn’t go away, but the news did. 

 

According to Education Week, twenty-five incidents occurred on school grounds or during school-sponsored events resulting in five student deaths, only one under the age of 14. Any such deaths are tragic, but that’s five out of 56.4 million students. Should anyone panic over such minuscule probability?

Headlines about these extremely rare events like shark attacks are easy to ignore, but when kids are involved, it’s different. Parents are terrified at the prospect of their child being abducted. Nosey neighbors report them for letting kids walk alone and authorities respond. An elementary school in South Carolina won’t let the kids whose mother wants them to walk home, leave school without an adult. “Today, only 10% of American kids walk to school, down from about 50% in 1969.” 

Reuters tries to assure parents: “Kidnapped children make headlines, but abduction is rare….On average, fewer than 350 people under the age of 21 have been abducted by strangers in the United States per year since 2010.” Then Parents.com tells them, “Every 40 seconds in the United States, a child becomes missing or is abducted.” But they don't tell them that 0.1% are abducted by strangers, over 95% simply ran away and 99.8% are later found alive. 

 

It’s an endless battle against the media, politicians and charities selling products or ideas and raising  funds using big numbers. The best defense is perspective.

Flashback – Need for Speed

It is no wonder that anxiety and depression are increasing as a combination of constant bad news, the threat of the coronavirus and political tensions are compounded by the breathless urgency of the media’s presentations. Everything is top priority, and everyone is fighting to be the first to tell their version of every story. No one can wait until tomorrow for a more thorough or accurate story, because by tomorrow there will be a new crisis.

Almost nine years ago I warned of this trend:

[It's Monday morning and I find a news story about a news story. The news of Whitney Houston’s death was on Twitter 27 minutes before the mainstream media broke the story. A whole 27 minutes! That’s unbelievable! How could people be kept waiting so long? Shouldn’t there be some kind of law to prevent such unconscionable delays in communicating these life-changing events?

Of course I’m being sarcastic. It is rather amazing that Twitter has such a web of interconnections. The article goes on to cite statistics about the number of tweets and retweets, suggesting that Twitter may become the new source of breaking news. (The power of the social media is the power we give it.)

My question is: What’s the hurry? Why the urgency? It’s too bad Whitney Houston died. It’s too bad she had all those personal problems. She was a great entertainer, admired by many. But what’s the big deal about finding out 27 minutes later?

First, we have been conditioned to expect “breaking news” as soon as it happens – even news that does not affect us directly. Television and the Internet compete for our attention, and the way to get it seems to be to promise instant gratification for our news craving. Details can be filled in later, but the important thing, we are told, is to find out about it now. As implied by a series of recent smartphone ads, if you are the last to know, you are considered some kind of loser. It’s cool to be able to respond that you already got the word.

Another part of the problem is that people place too much importance on the roles of entertainers. They spend so much time, money and emotional energy following the output of their favorite performer, group or team that they consider them close friends. Stars can’t go out in public without people hassling them for autographs or selfies. Stars want privacy while fans demand their attention.

This behavior, the importance we place both on celebrity and on instant news, is a symptom of a lack of perspective in our society that leads to problems elsewhere in our lives, poor decisions and misplaced priorities.

When my father died, my brother called to give me the news so that I could make travel arrangements to attend the funeral. This news was important and personal to me, but if I had gotten it 27 minutes later, it would have made no difference at all.]

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?)

Manifesting, Really?

About 40 years ago a consultant descended on the company where I was working to meet with all employees (who later magically became associates) to introduce them to the power of what he called “visioning.” According to him, visioning was the key to achieving your goals in life and at work. He had convinced the executive team that harnessing such power would thrust the company forward.

 

Participants need only form a strong vision in their minds and things would turn out favorably. If it didn’t work you weren’t doing it right. As would be expected, employees dutifully attended training, and then returned to their desks to do their jobs in the usual way. Like most business fads, it quickly faded. The only benefit was that someone caught daydreaming could plead visioning as a defense.

 

Until recently, I assumed that fad had died – but no! It merely got rebranded and now is being sold to individuals as manifesting.

 

I found the details on this site from August 2019, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Manifesting.” 

 

“Manifesting is cultivating the experience of what it is that you want to feel — and then living and believing in that experience so that you can allow it to come into form.” It can be used to “attract whatever you want, whether that’s a successful business, good health, a relationship or even a material object.” There’s no limit to the power of manifesting as long as you align with the loving energy of the universe. (It sounds a lot like praying that Notre Dame will win the football game.) 

 

It is further defined as “the process of vibrating at a high frequency so that you become a vibrational match with the Universe and can co-create your world.”

 

According to the site’s own survey, a vast majority are confused about how to do it right. (Maybe they’re wondering why it’s taking so long for their dreams to come true when they are concentrating/vibrating so hard.) 

 

But then come the disclaimers. Practitioners err in thinking that exactly what they want should magically appear. It doesn’t work that way because the Universe is wiser and may have different plans. You may sometimes get what you want, but you don’t have total control.

 

Even though it may initially sound loony and airy-fairy, there are some positive messages. The video on the site emphasizes focusing more on what you have that’s working, being grateful, instead of stressing about what you don’t have or how long it is taking. This is a good message, which I call perspective and have written about here about 150 times.

 

That’s followed by more good advice about not trying to force or control everything. Don’t sweat the small stuff, be aware of your financial situation and be in control your feelings.

 

When I first read all this alignment with the vibrations of the Universe stuff, it seemed laughable. But deeper down it looks more like a religion for the non-religious: “We can trust that an energy beyond our own is working on our behalf and that everything is working out for us — even if we don’t know exactly when or how it will happen.” Readers were advised to be patient and practice manifesting not just on special occasions but every day, the same advice you would hear about prayer in any church, temple or mosque. 

 

The problem is that some people are selling this as a standalone, magic solution to all life’s problems, while the part about taking responsibility is easily overlooked. You can’t just sit down and wish things into existence. The Lord does help those who help themselves.

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!]

Flashback – Leading the Admirable Life

I have written about role models a couple of times. In this entry I pointed out in a lighthearted way the nonsense promoted by the media and others of needing a role model that “looks like me.” Not only is this unnecessarily limiting, it’s a bunch of foolishness driven by identity issues that do nothing to unify the country.  Here is the post from July 2019.

[How do you lead a good and admirable life, even if you are never going to be famous? Perhaps a good idea would be to search for and identify people who are widely admired and to try to follow their example.

With this in mind I went to the Wikipedia list of the 18 most widely admired people of the 20^th Century. The full list includes: Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, Eleanor Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Ronald Reagan, Henry Ford, Bill Clinton, Margaret Thatcher.

Indeed these are all admirable people, but immediately I run into a problem. Most of these people don’t look like me. Five are women, and three definitely have darker skin. Three have far more hair, Eisenhower has less, and Einstein’s hair – well. That certainly narrows down my options.

Maybe instead of being admired it would be better to be significant. Again there’s a list for that, this time from the Smithsonian. They have several different categories. As a Rebel or Resistor I have slim chances when I see names like Martin Luther King Jr., Robert E. Lee, Thomas Paine, John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, W.E.B. Du Bois, Tecumseh, Sitting Bull, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Malcolm X. How many of these people look like me?

The rest of the categories were equally discouraging, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln (?) and especially where, listed under the athletes category, I found Secretariat!

Not to be deterred, I look for a role model under “25 Most Influential People In History By Attribute.” Bruce Lee, I don’t think so. Washington (again) was followed by Walt Disney, Louis Pasteur and Marilyn Monroe. I stopped reading. I can see this will be another dead end. Few if any of them look like me!

Yes, this essay has gotten a little silly, but it’s only to point out how silly people are to handicap themselves by believing their role models must be someone who “looks like me” to be valid. None of the originals had any role models at all. They just had to behave their way to success. We could learn a lot from them just by looking at their words and actions, yet we hear the looks-like-me mantra all the time on the news. The absence of a role model who looked like me is a favorite complaint. It seems like another excuse to portray oneself as victim, often by people who have been successful enough to be given a platform in the first place. That a role model must look like me is a limiting, negative and discouraging message to give to any child. It’s a shame that it has become such a common theme.]

Flashback – Baby Powder

Almost exactly four years ago I wrote about the difference between how the legal system looks at the danger of baby powder vs. how science sees it. Of course, that makes no difference, as just this week I saw another class action lawsuit ad on TV. When it comes to taking money from big rich companies and giving it to poor victims (and their lawyers) juries don’t care about science. They just want to use someone else’s money to dry the tears.

But they still expect the same company to continue to make the Tylenol for their headaches while testing and producing a COVID-19 vaccine. It’s all part of some weird love/hate relationship.

From September 2016: "How Baby Powder Can Harm You?"

[Under the heading of Health, the Fox News headline read: “Research finds talc doesn't cause cancer; juries disagree.” The story tells that two juries awarded a total of $127 million dollars to two women claiming that the Johnson & Johnson baby powder gave them ovarian cancer. A second judge threw out two cases, saying there was no reliable evidence; but another 2000 women have already lined up to sue.

That’s the legal side. What does science say? “Most research finds no link or a weak one between ovarian cancer and using baby powder for feminine hygiene, a practice generations of American mothers have passed on to their daughters. Most major health groups have declared talc harmless.” The rest of the article gives more information about the research and the trials. Here is another conflict between science and the legal process, but that should come as no surprise in light of jury awards given years ago for silicon breast implants when the implants were later found to be safe.

It is very easy to understand how a jury could ignore science and award millions of dollars to a woman with ovarian cancer. They do it out of sympathy, and they do it because they can. To do otherwise seems cold and heartless.  It’s not their money and the company has plenty of money. What’s a few million dollars in the grand scheme of things when it can bring comfort?

What person would stand by and see a toddler fall and skin her knee and not immediately run over to pick her up, dust her off and give her some comfort? It is the human thing to do.

There are several similarities between the one who helps the fallen toddler and the juries who award large sums. It costs them nothing. It gives comfort to the afflicted, although it does nothing to cure the cancer or heal the skinned knee. And it makes the rescuers feel good about themselves.

There are, however a few key differences. When you comfort the toddler it truly costs you nothing, and other toddlers don’t look at the one who fell and line up to also fall down to get sympathy. (Some may independently discover that falling down is an easy way to get attention, and some of them probably grow up to be trial lawyers.)

Also, when a toddler gets sympathy, the costs of that sympathy are not spread to the rest of society.  When a jury finds for the plaintiff in this case, not only does the company (or insurance company) pay, but every other company in that industry is put on notice. They are at risk of losing a large judgment for one of their products that has been on the market for years with no ill effects. They don’t spend the money now, but must keep some in reserve to protect against such a contingency.

Likewise, all insurance companies, seeing that evidence means nothing to some juries, must save for similar outcomes. The companies making personal products slowly raise their prices to adjust for this, and the insurance companies raise their rates to cover the increased risk. This sympathetic redistribution, which is really what it is, ends up costing everyone in society. 

What’s worse is that this activity adds no value. It does not add to the GDP. It does nothing to increase the standard of living for anyone except the few women who win in court (and their lawyers – Remember personal injury lawyers are not paid for justice; they are only paid for winning.)

In the end what can Johnson & Johnson do (besides spend a lot more time and money appealing each decision)? What lesson could they learn? Should they get everyone who buys baby powder to sign a hold-harmless agreement? Why are they more at fault than the “generations of American mothers” referred to in the article? They made a product considered safe for years and suddenly they are on the hook for $127 million; and if the ratios hold true and half the next 2000 win similar amounts, it could be $127 billion! It’s “jackpot justice,” and the cost of all the winning “lottery tickets” is spread among the rest of us, including the people who served on those juries!

So how can baby powder harm you? It harms you in the same way other wasteful legal actions harm you. It takes money out of deep pockets to compensate “victims,” but the costs ultimately come back to each of us, with nothing to show for it but richer lawyers, and juries who, in some misguided way, temporarily feel satisfied that they did something to help.]

Why Is Capitalism a Failed System?

Just as one example, here is a picture of Seattle taken about 140 years ago. A caption reads, “Seattle was still a village in 1878 and contained about 3,500 people” with an average life expectancy at birth of about 42 years.

Today the city itself has a population of almost 750,000 with nearly 4 million people living in the Seattle metropolitan area. It looked like this a few years ago.

The caption from this 2015 picture says “243,995 Seattleites work downtown,” while 65,000 people live there.

Suppose someone told those 1878 residents about an economic system that, despite some problems of cheating and favoritism, would raise their standard of living by many hundreds of times. They would have cars, electric lighting and appliances, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, antibiotics, air travel, a telephone in every pocket and so many other things they could never have imagined; and the only drawback would be some income inequality. Would that seem like a fair deal?

With the typical poor person in Seattle living longer and at a higher material and health standard today than the typical person 140 years ago, why do a number of its citizens (and others around the country) think the system should be scrapped? Could it be a problem with perspective, critical thinking or economic understanding?

Flashback – Chicken Protests

Back in 2015 I wondered if Americans ever stop to appreciate how well off we must be when some people have the time and energy to demand better living conditions for chickens. We have progressed from stressing about putting food on the table to stressing about whether that food had a happy life. Americans only 50 years ago would have been scratching their heads in disbelief.

A second point is that a minority can coerce, bully and guilt the majority into acquiescence either as a PR attempt to appear kind and caring or to just put a stop to the tantrums. This tactic has grown in popularity and success over the past five years. 

Here is the original message from five years ago.

[Recently I read about people protesting for the better treatment of chickens so they can have a more pleasant life before they are killed and served up at fast food restaurants.  Here is one version.

The emphasis was on fast food industry because they have more economic clout than individuals making choices at the grocery store. It also gives protesters the opportunity to force their values on everyone else. Concerning any issue, note how easily that a minority of fanatics can impose their will on a majority of relatively indifferent citizens. They care; you don’t; you lose.

What struck me about the chicken story was a point of perspective. Does anyone, or indeed the protesters themselves sit back and think about what a luxury it is to be concerned about the living conditions of chickens? These are not your property, chickens you rely on to provide a livelihood. They are not pets, favorite chickens that live in the backyard and provide you with eggs. These are stranger chickens, ones that you never interact with until their remains appear in the freezer section of the grocery store or in the nugget box.

How many problems have we been able to solve to move the welfare of stranger chickens to the top of a priority list, important enough to change our buying habits or even give up our time to try to influence others? We must have enough food, shelter from the elements, a happy and healthy family, a wide circle of friends, job security, enough money in the bank for future emergencies and be at peace with our faith or conscience. In short, a person has to be pretty set in life to have the luxury to be able to worry about the living conditions of stranger chickens! That is pretty wonderful!

Of course, even those who are so set up in their own lives might care about the living conditions of other human beings, the poor in the inner cities and overseas, and the neighbor who needs a hand or just a kind word, before chickens. But people are free to make choices. 

It is important, though, when we make those choices, to remember how lucky we are to have the freedom and luxury to make them.]

Flashback – Why Is Color So Important?

My very first entry of 2013 addressed the power of color in decision-making in areas as different as medication and car buying. The point of these examples was to show how Americans are influenced by superficial characteristics, an indication of problems in the dimension of perspective. These many years later the media and certain groups are again focusing on color differences, particularly skin color, treating it as more important than substance and character. It seems we have made little progress since I wrote this.

[This thought about perspective was inspired by recent medical news about the color of pills and by a slightly older story about the color of cars. Perspective is about distinguishing between what’s important and what’s trivial, hence, living according to real values rather than values imposed by society. People strong in perspective look past external appearances and tend to adopt a lifestyle based on moderation. Common examples of poor perspective include the Black Friday stampedes and the accumulation of debt from buying to satisfy our wants and impulses or to impress others.

A key lesson is that appearances are often deceptive when it comes to judging what's really important.  Nevertheless, examples abound showing how people are overly influenced by external factors, in the following cases by color alone.

The first is a health report that came out earlier this week. Studies show that when the color of medication is changed, there is a greater a tendency for people to stop taking it. This occurred 27 to 50 percent of the time, and it is not a trivial problem. “Failure to take a prescribed medication — a behavior known as non-adherence — costs $290 billion annually in additional health complications, according to the New England Healthcare Institute.” Apparently generic medication, less expensive but identical to the brand name drug, may be manufactured by several companies. They don’t coordinate with each other on the color, nor do they take great pains to maintain consistency within each company.  People look at their pills and don’t recognize them or are confused by the color. Over-reliance on visual cues causes them to make poor decisions about continuing medication.

The influence of something as superficial as color extends beyond the health field. As this article points out, “BuyingAdvice.com [has found] that if a car is not available in the preferred color, 40 percent of drivers will decide to change brands.” With all the factors involved in deciding which car to buy:  safety, reliability, fuel economy, price, warrantee, insurance costs, and others; isn’t it surprising that 40% would switch brands – Ford instead of Toyota or Kia instead of Subaru – just because they can’t find the color they want? This is especially surprising since, when sitting inside a car, it’s very difficult to tell what color the car is! The color is visible only to other people. It could be ugly green or bright pink and you’d never know it until you got out.

When making major decisions, it's critical to put substantial factors ahead of superficial ones. Based on these stories alone, color is one of those external factors that wrongly holds considerable sway in decision making. A good New Year’s resolution might be to try to be less influenced by appearance and other external factors. Maybe we can start with pills and cars and work our way up to people.]

Flashback – Hydration and Littering

Almost three years ago I wrote the following about how the incessant advice about hydration was mostly bogus, promoted by the bottled water industry and misinformed social media users. This week I ran across this Guardian article, “The truth about hydration” that reinforces everything I wrote back then. In the middle of a hot summer with TV meteorologists parroting the same reminders, it’s a good time to review.

[“The federal government announced Wednesday it will eliminate a policy that allowed national parks like the Grand Canyon to ban the sale of bottled water in an effort to curb litter.”  Fox News explains that the rules were set up in 2011 because empty bottles scattered throughout some of the parks had become a major problem.  One problem was the emphasis on bottled water.  They did not ban the sale of other beverages, such as sugary soft drinks that are typically made of sturdier plastic.  The policy was obviously not completely thought through in the first place, setting them up as an easy target for objections.

Those objections did come and the National Park Service officials changed their minds.  But instead of just admitting they were wrong or banning the rest of the soft drinks, they said they wanted to "expand hydration options for recreationalists, hikers, and other visitors to national parks."  Falling back on the idea of hydration they tried to make it sound like a health-related decision.  There are a couple of questionable aspects to this.

Later in the article is one sentence that probably gets more toward the truth:  “ The bottled water and beverage industry have previously lobbied aggressively to keep bottled water at U.S. national parks.”  As in most cases, follow the money.

But what is all this about hydration?  This is one of those urban myths that people just won’t drop.  I even heard someone talking about pre-hydration the other day, comparing drinking lots of water (or sports drink) to applying sunscreen before you go out.

More and more experts are coming forward with contrary, more balanced advice.  Here is an example.  “Drink when you're thirsty. Stop drinking when your thirst is quenched. Obey that one rule and there is no risk of dehydration,” says Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a University of Pennsylvania kidney specialist.

Later on in that hydration article is a statement that shouldn’t surprise anyone: “Much research on human hydration [is] funded in part by bottled water industry.”

  

Another study found “no connection between hydration and the performance of athletes.”  It reiterates the sound, moderate advice to drink when thirsty.  There is no need to go overboard or walk through life tethered to a water bottle.

The final point is about bottled water itself.  I have elaborated on this subject in the past.  With a few rare exceptions or in emergency situations, bottled water is typically no purer than tap water and sells at a hundred times the price.  From time to time the bottled water companies are taken to task by some government agency for questionable practices or claims.  Some merely use tap water from another location.  Most recently a lawsuit cites Poland Spring Water for deceiving customers by “bottling common groundwater that doesn’t meet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's definition of spring water.” 

Lately I’ve noticed in some airports an absence of the usual drinking fountains outside restrooms.  The only option is to buy the bottles from the vendors.  Again, follow the money.

Yes, it is important to have water with you when hiking in a national park (or anywhere).  It is smart (critical thinking) to buy a water bottle or canteen for the occasion and fill it at the tap or refill it at a drinking fountain. It is responsible not to throw bottles or any kind of litter around the trails or campgrounds. It shows perspective to understand that it’s unnecessary to pre-hydrate or take other extraordinary actions.  Drink when you are thirsty; it’s as simple as that.  So many of these problems can be easily solved by right behavior rather than by government regulations.]

Wanted: A New National Anthem

The New National Anthem Committee is accepting applications. The current anthem has several flaws that must be addressed.

First, it is very difficult to sing. Second, the only verse that is usually sung is far too long. This becomes obvious by the fact the fans at sporting events get bored and restless, unable to maintain an attitude of respect and reverence toward the flag and country all the way to the end, whooping and hollering well before the last note has sounded. Starting criteria will be: easier to sing and shorter.

The current anthem is also objectionable for other reasons. One passage in the third verse, a verse most Americans didn’t even know existed until a controversy arose a few years ago, is by one interpretation objectionable and does not reflect twenty-first century values. (Note that this interpretation did not reflect twentieth century values when the anthem was adopted either, but general ignorance of its existence rendered the issue moot for over 80 years.)

The lyrics are about a war, sometimes called the second war for American independence. But the subject of war, any war, can be offensive to some.

Furthermore, the author, also a lawyer, had a mixed background. Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, but freed some of his slaves in the 1830s, paying one ex-slave as his farm foreman. He publicly criticized slavery and gave free legal representation to some slaves seeking freedom, but he also represented owners of runaway slaves.

When submitting a possible replacement anthem, this is important to remember. It is no longer acceptable to have wrong values and reform or to make a mistake and apologize. Every accusation of wrongdoing is tantamount to guilt in the court of public opinion with no statute of limitations. Mistakes or misstatements 30, 50 or 200 years ago have the same force as if they had happened yesterday. There is no forgiveness, so the work of any author submitted will be judged first by the purity of the author’s actions and reputation.

Finally and needless to say, the inclusion of the word “God” will lead to objections and immediate disqualification. Also, the use of words like “Free” and “Brave” are discouraged, as they are anathema to a society nearly devoid of responsibility, where the first instinct is to “sue the bastards,” or at least find someone else to blame for the slightest problem. Offense, supposed injury and victimhood get attention and sympathy; whereas personal responsibility, which used to be considered heroic based on previous American values and culture, is discouraged. Free and brave don't reflect the ethos of the time.

In short, avoid trying to be aspirational lest it be branded as being unrealistic and unrepresentative.

Send submissions to the New National Anthem Committee. Include email address and street address, the latter in case the Committee finds anything in the submission offensive or  objectionable in any way so that next time we are in your neighborhood we can vandalize your property and call it exercising our free-speech rights to protest.