TalkingHeads with a Microphone........... Still Idiots

Yesterday, a new Poll showed that 67% of Americans believe that the Stimulus Bill will help the economy while at the same time only 31% believe that the same Bill will help them personally. In addition, the Poll also shows that about 72% believe that they personally are not in financila danger.They presented this news as something contradictory and implies that the Bill is not helping much ... only 31% ... !!!

In their analysis, that is bad news for the Bill effectiveness in curbing the downward spiral of the economy. I got very upset ..... not because of what they said but because of what it means. May be the Bill will or will not help the economy. That is a given. It is an attempt to put out a fire that NO ONE knows what is the sure way to put out. It is an honest attempt ..... that is what the best thinking minds of the country produced and the best possible Bill that could be approved by selfish politicians. That was not why I was upset.

My problem with their analysis was this: Why did they say that by personally helping only 31%, the Bill is not helping much?

Did they understand what the Bill is for?
Did they understand the question?
Did they understand what the answers really mean?

Their analysis showed that they really did not understand any of that. For them, it is just this simple: The Bill is helping only 31% of people ... that is very bad ... it is helping only a minority of people not a great majority.

To me, the Poll results are a proof that the Bill is doing EXACTLY what it was supposed to do. And if it turns out that in fact it helps 31% of the people it would have achieved its objectives 100% and the economy would be bouncing back real soon. Those 31% believe it would help them ... we all hope it is that effective.But that is really not a good effectiveness as far as the TalkingHeads are concerned. I think they are idiots.

Please allow me to explain: Let's start by the answer to the first question: what is the Bill's objective?I assume that every American KNOWS, not just understand, by now that the Bill is to help People, States and Businesses who are in trouble.

If I am correct in this assumption, and I believe that I am, then what does it mean that only 31% of the people believe that the Bill will help them personally while 67% believe the Bill will help the economy and 72% believe they are Ok financially?

If they have thought for a minute, they would have discovered that it simply means that 36% (67%-31%)of the people think it would help the economy but not them personally ..... while 5% (72% - 67%) believe that the Bill will help them even though they are not in a financial danger.

Why did the TalkingHeads think that if the Bill is helping only 31% of the people it means that it is not effective?

The answer to that question lies in the fact that they dont understand the numbers they are looking at or what it mean. It is pathetic. Idiots with a microphone and a huge audiance ... and they are supposed to be the experts on the issue. Even the guests they invited on the show ... none of them corrected the host and pointed out the ignorance prevailing in the discussion.

The Bill is a possible cure to an ailing economy .... its purpose is to help people who are in trouble so they can regain their financial health and that should restore the Nation's economic health in the process.

The Bill is helping only 31% .... because only 31% of people ARE in trouble ... ... were the TalkingHeads hoping that a lot more were in trouble? 31% of people are in trouble and that is whom the Bill is helping ..... why is that bad? were they hoping that 67% of people were in trouble? 72% of people are saying they are ok, ... the Bill is not only helping the 28% who are in trouble ... it is helping 31% ...3% of people are getting help even though they are not in trouble ( I think those are from the people who are benefiting from the payroll tax cuts) and the Bill is not doing enough????

Think people think ... think before you operate your TalkingHead machine.

The Echo Chamber....So Satisfying for One-Track Mentality

If the brain has a limited scope and only thinks with a tunnel-vision mentality then it is very satisfying to hear one's own voice. Any other voice even if slightly different causes major blur in that brain's scope of vision and it can't function or see clearly what is ahead or what the surroundings are.

The Echo Chamber is an ideal place for that kind of brain. It just returns to it what it says and nothing else disturbs the quiet atmosphere in the brain. No effort needed to resolve conflicts or answer questions or change or expand the scope of vision. It is a happy place for brains who don't like too much activity. Even little thinking makes them tired.They are happy where they are and that is where they will remain ....

A Proposal for the Holy Land

I would like to address the question of how can the US support Israel without creating enemies which our current policy, up until now, is doing. Considering the history of the area and the situation currently on the ground, following is what I believe could be an acceptable solution to both sides. First, just a brief look at the history:

The Middle East and in particular the Egypt-Palestine/Israel-Saudi Arabia triangle has always been and will always remain the focal point of Humans ever since they inherited this planet The people living in that area are aware of the uniqueness of their land and they always traded with each other with no major conflict between them. All the fights in that area were almost always with outsiders trying to control it. Starting from the middle of the Ancient Egyptian era to the Tatar, the Romans, the Greeks, the Crusaders and now the “West”, the fights were always to reclaim the land from the “Invaders”. That doesn’t mean there were no friction between one group or the other every once in a while, but it was no different than the normal frictions between different groups in any other region in the world.

The Real problem started when the Romans persecuted the Jewish population in the area surrounding Jerusalem and forced large numbers of them to flee to other countries including Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco and of course to Europe. The rest of the problem is a well known history.

I mentioned the above in order to establish a fact that most of the people who are concerned about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict ignore: The current Palestinians Are the descendants of those who stayed, they are not some alien creatures from another lands.

Israel’s recreation ignored that fact and Israel’s hard liners today still ignore it. At the same time the current Palestinians hard liners also ignore the fact that those who returned to the land in 1948 and since are the descendants of those who fled the persecution 2000 years ago.

It is obvious, to any neutral observer, that it is not fair for anyone to come after 2000 years to claim a land they left behind even if they were forced to leave specially that the ones who stayed had no role in that terrible act of forcing people out of their land. If anyone objects to that logic, and I suppose that there will be many, let them answer this question: would the African Americans and the rest of the African people who were kidnapped and forced into Slavery allover the world have the right to go back to their original land in Africa and claim that they are the rightful owners of that land?

However, and regardless of the rights and wrongs, we now have two groups having the same origin i.e. they are in reality distant cousins each claiming the same land. It is obvious that both are partially correct in that claim and neither one will ever be satisfied with only part of that land. This fact is very clear to anyone who knows both sides. Any talk that we hear from the leaders in the area about “The Two State Solution” is being said because they CAN’T, politically, say what they really want. Only what we call the fanatics on both sides admit that. The sad fact is that those fanatics are the honest ones. Their way of achieving what they want may be vicious and wrong, but they are honest in what they want. The politicians are not honest, on both sides.

So, what is the solution then and how the USA can support Israel and still be fair to all sides? Sometimes we don’t see the forest from the trees. This time we only have to look to our north Boarder to See the solution.

It is the Canadian Model. The “One State Solution”

One state with two, may be three provinces each with their own language and traditions but all citizens are free to live in either one. The provinces are “Israel”, “The West Bank” and “Gaza” of one country called “Palestine” shared by the Cousins who were raised in different environments but now came back to their home land. The details are not an impossible task. It could be worked out. Over time they will get to trust each other and hopefully look at this period of their common history as just another struggle they had to go through together.

The USA could be instrumental in making this solution a reality by convincing each side to give up a little in order to gain a lot. The USA could also offer Compensation to both sides for whatever reasonable claims they have and help in providing guarantees for both sides to be treated fairly by the central government of the new "Palestine".

Of course this is a “draft” of what could really be an acceptable solution to both sides but it needs the USA to act neutrally and have the interests of both sides at heart not just Israel. That is how a Superpower should act.

Searching for the "Truth"

Several yeas ago I read a book about "God and the New Physics" (by Paul Davis - pb.1984, Simon &Schuster). It is a good book, but selectivity is rampant in it. In all what the author lists as blatant contradiction between science and religion he mainly uses the Old and the New Testaments. Although he mentioned Islam in the beginning, he never took Islam's view in the matter into consideration.

No where is this selectivity so obvious than when searching for the "Truth" about how we and our universe were created and about our relationship with the "Creator". Scientists and Theologians are searching for the same "Truth" each from a different angle and with different tools. However, no matter how different are the angles or the tools, there are few basic principles that they both theoretically share. Both say that they rely mainly on "Logic" And "Evidence". Of course that "Evidence" relies heavily on an element of "faith". The scientists have faith in their methods and results and theologians have faith in the people who relayed the words of God to them. Unfortunately in most discussions, they both selectively pick and chose their "Logic" and their "Evidence".

Because of this selectivity, they both find contradictions and incompatibilities either within the other’s view or between their view and the other’s view. This is because sometimes incomplete truths or falsehoods are used and sometimes ignoring logic entirely is used.

I was reminded of that book while following a recent discussion about God, Good, Bad ....etc and I can safely say that the author of that book, as a scientist, usually uses All the facts available to him whenever he discusses any purely scientific topic. Considering the known fact that a good deal of human input went into the writings of both of the OT and the NT while Qura'an is considered (by Muslims) to be the direct and literal words of God, it is very strange that the author ignores a source that claims to be the actual words of God and relies solely on the two texts that don’t claim that. If he had included Qura'an in his discussion, ALL the contradictions that he pointed out would have been resolved.

For Example: The famous contradiction is the age of the Universe. All of the three Books say it was created in Six Days. The OT and the NT say nothing further than that. and it is understood by both religions as just "Six Days". This is obviously in clear contradiction to the scientific evidence that to go from the instant of the Big Bang (the light as it is called in the three books) when creation started to where you have seven heavens, stars, planets and moons you need billions of years. Had he consulted the third book, he would have realized that there really is no contradiction. Qura'an clearly says in many separate verses the Following: one time it says "And the Day of your Lord is 100,000 years of what you count". and in another verse it says "And the Day of your Lord is 50,000 years of what you count", and still in another it says "And the Day of you Lord is 20,000 years of what you count". It is amazing that more than 1425 years ago, there was a book talking about the relativity of time and its changing duration depending on where you are. Those "Six Days of your Lord" could easily be the billions of years of what we count that are needed for the universe to reach the point when Adam was created i.e. when there was Earth. No contradiction there.

Another example is the God/Adam/Eve/Snake (Satan) conflict. The OT/NT narrative presents many problems: why were Adam and Eve being tested? Did they have a choice in the matter? Why did Satan deceive Eve and Adam? and many other logical questions. Of course OT/NT believers have answers to these questions, but all these answers are not based on God's own words. It is based on the interpretation of the human input into the two books. and the answers themselves pose many logical questions.

Qura'an claims, However, to be the literal and direct words of God, so at least he should have checked what it says about that conflict. If he had done that, he would have found that All the questions that he posed have a very logical answer in Qura'an's narrative.

Religion/Science debate is not the only arena where incomplete information or biased one sided view clouds the vision of whoever is looking for any "Truth" . This distortion exists in most of what people generally discuss and that makes it almost impossible to reach a general agreement on any thing no matter how simple it is.

I don’t know if this is intentional bias in order to discredit the other's view or is it just natural tendencies to prove ourselves right and the others wrong regardless of the situation

God Talking to People

Recently an amazing theme started to appear in more than few of blog postings. That is: God speaking with the authors of those postings, or so they claim. It seems that it is very fashionable nowadays to claim that what you say was according to what God told you during a "personal" speaking session with Him.

I honestly dont know what that means. In all God's messages to humanity, through His Messengers and Prophets, He said He chose those few people to convey His message to Humanity in general. He never said that He speaks to individual people privately to convey a personal message regarding those individuals and regarding them alone. The messages that were conveyed by those Messengers and Prophets were clear and specific and contain major, MAJOR, ideology and belief system. Essentially it was the Same Ideology and belief system with variations not very significant and it was intended to be delivered to all humanity not to be personal and specific to a certain individual.

So how do these people now claim that He, God, speaks to them? Messengers and Prophets of old always had what convinced people that they were REALLY getting what they say from God. They had certain qualities and capabilities no human can attain on his own. But these later-day- (i don’t even know what to call them now) have nothing meaningful to say except rehashing ideas and opinions shared and said by many other humans who never claimed that God talks to them.

GWB of course is the most famous Later-day-whatever. He said that Higher Authority told him to invade Iraq. As if this was something no one else thought of or desired before him. He forgot that his "Big Idea" was really old, as old as 1991 or even before and more sane people rejected it for its obvious dangers and wishful thinking.

Others do similar things. The prince of darkness (i.e. Robert D. Novak) recently claimed that he converted to Christianity after the HS told him so. Posts on JU are full of that kind of claims i.e. God or the HS is talking to people and told them what to do or say.

Again, how in the world do they know it was God? As far as I know God says if you want to talk to me, pray. If you want me to talk to you, read what I told my Messengers and Prophets to convey to you.

In other words unless someone claims that he/she is a prophet or a messenger he/she has no right whatsoever to say that God was talking to them. To claim otherwise is just simple arrogance and pretentious and they should really stop that. It is very silly and foolish. It shows and they just don’t see or feel it.

I just wanted to tell them all Stop it. Don’t use His name in vain to validate your brain's product (if that is where it is coming from).

Moral Inconsistency

There is nothing more dishonest than being morally inconsistent. if someone is immoral in a consistent way at least you can argue with them based on what their values are and try to show them that they are on the wrong side of the issue. However, when they are morally inconsistent you know that they know what the right side of the issue is since they go there whenever they choose. Unfortunately, it seems that they choose the right side ONLY when it suits their agenda or whatever their objectives are.

It is really hypocrite and flagrantly dishonest to say you are against violence and coercion (even provoked ones) in personal everyday societal interactions with people around you and at the same time have no objection whatsoever to your country adopt force and coercion as means of interaction with other nations of the world without being provoked.

The same goes for people who support unnecessary war as long as they don’t have any personal stake in the matter. Once someone they know is killed in it or if the war goes on for a long time than what they thought, their view changes 180 degrees in a flash.

I see this way of moral inconsistency allover the place: In tax issues, poverty issues, health care issues, etc. The typical explanation they usually give when they change their mind is "I learned my lesson" or "I was young and naive". This of course is BS and they know it. Before they changed their view, they knew what the moral side of the issue was. They just didn’t go there till it hit them in the face and became personal.How convenient. Be moral and civilized in your personal life, but when it comes to the nation and to other nations.... naaaah.

Is this a real moral choice these people make or is it selective brain function? Their brain works when it is personal and it doesn’t when it is not?

I don’t think it is the latter, since this is the way non-human brains work. They choose sides based only on their self-interest. Natural selfishness you might call it. Humans are not supposed to be that way. It must be the first then; they just select the moral side Only when it suits their self-interest. In both cases the result is the same, the difference is that one is natural instincts, the other is by choice.It is sad that some people behave that way. Unfortunately, these days so many of us do.

Political Obsession

I believe that most people in America are reasonable and deal with life in a more or less moderate way. Each of us sure have their unreasonable moments every once in a while, but in general most of us don’t get fixated on one or few particular issues and keep complaining about and/or discussing them endlessly without any specific objective in mind.

The extremities of our political life, however, are populated by people who have their fixation on certain issues. No matter what happens in or to the country or the world, they can’t get out of their fixation and they keep talking and arguing, mostly among themselves, about issues the reasonable Center usually discarded or settled long time ago and are no longer a pressing issue of concern or debate for them.The USA may be in the midst of a foggy struggle with undefined, but real and dangerous, enemy (or enemies) and the USA may be facing an economic downturn and serious credit crunch but each group of the people on the extremities are obsessed with its own issue whether it is Political Correctness, Going Green, Communism, Socialism, Taxing the rich, Smoking, Affirmative Action or ... etc they cant stop talking about it and have no reasonable limits on what they want to achieve. No smoking anywhere even in your home, no taxes on the rich because they hire people, change the way you make French fries because people get fat and heart attacks, no government involvement in setting reasonable policies for major issues, total government control of every aspect of people’s life … etc.

Most people don’t mind using words like "Christmas", "Disabled", and they don’t care much for a government that doesn’t care about the well-being of its citizens but the people on the far left and the far right argue about that endlessly. Most people don’t like communism or socialism, never have and never will, and both systems collapsed long time ago but the extremities' occupants keep trying to scare people from them in order to justify their efforts to undermine any government involvement in dealing with society's problems and to eliminate progressive tax policies. Most people don’t smoke where they are not supposed to but you still find some group trying to prevent people from smoking in their cars or in their homes as if they were appointed by God to safe-guard the health of others. The reasons and logic behind Affirmative Action have been settled and accepted by the majority long time ago but the Obsession with discussing it still flaring in the extremities. Most people realize that there is a problem with CO2 emissions but someone is trying to outlaw BQ’s (and lawn mowers!!!) as if that is the only thing they can think of to help the environment.

The odd thing is that the people occupying the extremities have no consistent logic at all in discussing these issues. They use whatever suits their objective at the moment. If they have to switch positions next day to defend their position they have no problem doing that. One day the Rule of the Majority is sacred, the next day it is the tyranny of the majority. One day Corporations are Public Enemy No.1, the next day they must stop moving their businesses overseas.

It is becoming annoying..... I wish the people of the extremities get a grip and think reasonably every once in a while. An election year is a good time to be less obsessive about certain issues and less extreme in our positions and concentrate on the more pressing issues facing our Nation and address them with reasonable policies.