The saying is often noted but just as often ignored that “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” — Santayana. To this profound advice, I would argue that my following observation is equally true and that it has resulted in an equal number of policy disasters and misadventures. To wit: “Those who do not recognize the patterns around them are doomed to failure.” I came by this observation in the middle of a night while pondering the intricacies of playing the “Whack a Mole” game
There is a game that children play and it is called “Whack a mole.” Have you ever played this game? If not, view the game at “Whack a Mole”. Basically, it involves a series of plastic moles that keep randomly popping out of different holes. You get points for each mole that you whack before it drops back into its hole. No sooner do you “Whack” one mole then another one pops up again. [If you would actually like to play the game, you can play a free fast paced version of the game at “Whack a Mole.”] They call it Smack and Bash at this site.
As I thought about this game, I began to see how it applied to numerous efforts that we undertake to bring about change. Understanding the game, I could see how futile many of these efforts are and clearly why they are doomed. Let me give you four examples that will show you how pervasive the “Whack a Mole” game is in politics and US policy:
- Eliminate the Mafia
- Win the war on drugs
- Defeat terrorism in the Mideast
- Stop the arms race
1. Eliminate the Mafia:
The Mafia may have begun in the United States in the second half of the 19th Century. The US law establishment has been waging a war to eliminate the Mafia for well over 100 years. During that time they have killed or arrested the following Mafia leaders:
- Giuseppe “the Clutch Hand” Morello – boss (1890s-1909)
- Nicholas “Nick” Morello – boss (1909–1916) killed in 1916
- Vincenzo “Vincent” Terranova – boss (1916–1920)
- Giuseppe “Joe the boss” Piperata – boss (1920–1931)
- Charlie “Lucky” Luciano – boss (1931–1946)
- Frank “The Prime Minister” Costello – acting boss (1936–1945), boss (1946–1957)
- “Don” Vito Genovese – underboss (1931–1936), boss (1957–1969)
- Anthony “Tony Bender” Strollo – acting boss (1959–1962)
- Thomas “Tommy Ryan” Eboli – acting boss (1962–1965)
- Frank Tieri – front boss (circa 1972-1981)
- Philip Lombardo – boss (1969–1981)
- Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno – front boss (1981–1987)
- Vincent “Chin” Gigante – underboss (1981–1987), boss (1981–2005)
- Liborio Bellomo – acting boss (1990–1992), Street boss (1992–1996)
- Dominick “Quiet Dom” Cirillo – acting boss (1997–1998)
- Matthew “Matty The Horse” Ianniello – acting boss (1997–2006)
- Mario Gigante – Street boss (2006–2007)
- Daniel Leo (mobster) – acting boss (2005–present)
It should be noted that this list includes only the leadership in just one crime family. There are at least a dozen or more Mafia crime families in the USA. Each one has a history of crime bosses since the early 1900s.
Crime bosses get eliminated or changed in a number of ways. Some die. Some are murdered. Some are arrested. Few if any ever simply retire. This last fact is good for our law enforcement agencies, since it helps keep them occupied with finding and catching Mafia leaders.
So for over 100 years now, the FBI, the Justice Department and every police department in the USA have been playing the “Whack a Mole” game with the Mafia. They no sooner whack one Mafia leader down and another pops up in his place. What fun! At the taxpayers’ expense of course.
- Win the war on drugs:
Drugs starting becoming a major problem in the USA with the competition between cigarettes, alcohol and other substances designed to give someone a feeling of either being up, down or out of it. We know that in 1920 the US passed the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution making the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol illegal. Few who have studied any history can forget the fiasco that Prohibition entailed. Alcohol continued to flow while crime, murder and mayhem associated with alcohol increased dramatically. Did we learn anything from this? Following is a short list of the major drug laws and “banned” drugs in the USA. (By the way, alcohol and nicotine and caffeine are all drugs and at one time or another have all been banned someplace in the world)
| 1906 | The Pure Food and Drug Act was passed, forming the Food and Drug Administration and giving it power to regulate foods and drugs, and requiring labeling of contents on foods and drugs. The most important effect on the drug problem was the demise of the patent medicine industry. Drug addiction began a dramatic drop. |
| 1914 | The Harrison Tax Act was passed, effectively outlawing the opiates and cocaine. |
| 1915 | Utah passed the first state anti-marijuana law. Mormons who had gone to Mexico in 1910 returned smoking marijuana. It was outlawed at a result of the Utah legislature enacting all Mormon religion prohibitions as criminal laws. |
| 1922 | Narcotic Drug Import and Export Act – Intended to eliminate use of narcotics except for legitimate medicinal use. |
| 1924 | Heroin Act -Makes it illegal to manufacture heroin. |
| 1937 | Marijuana Tax Act |
1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
1942 Opium Poppy Control Act
1951 Durham-Humphrey Amendment
Established more specific guidelines for prescription drugs: habit forming, safety, and evaluation of new drugs
1951 Boggs Amendment to the Harrison Narcotic Act
1956 Narcotics Control Act
Intends to impose even more severe penalties for narcotics violations
1965 Drug Abuse Control Amendments (DACA)
Strict controls over amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD, etc.
1966 Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act (NARA)
1968 DACA Amendments
Provides that sentence may be suspended and record expunged if no further violations within 1 year
1970 Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act
Replaces and updates all previous laws concerning narcotics and other dangerous drugs. Empasis on law enforcement.
1972 Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act
1973 Methadone Control Act
1973 Heroin Trafficking Act
1973 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Remodels Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs into DEA
1978 Alcohol and Drug Abuse Education Amendments
Sets up education programs within Department of Education
1984 Drug Offenders Act
Sets up special programs for offenders and organizes treatment
1986 Analogue (Designer Drug) Act
Makes use of substances with similar effects and structure to existing illicit drug illegal
1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act
Establishes oversight office: National Drug Control Policy
So here we see the efforts of over 100 years of drug policy to stop people from using, enjoying and abusing drugs in the USA. What has been the result?
“America is at war. We have been fighting drug abuse for almost a century. Four Presidents have personally waged war on drugs. Unfortunately, it is a war that we are losing. Drug abusers continue to fill our courts, hospitals, and prisons. The drug trade causes violent crime that ravages our neighborhoods. Children of drug abusers are neglected, abused, and even abandoned. The only beneficiaries of this war are organized crime members and drug dealers.” — Stanford University.
For an excellent article on the costs of the drug war in the US, please see: (“The Hidden Costs of America’s War on Drugs” by Joseph D. McNamara, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University)
As it should be clear, the US Government, the FDA, the FBI and most mainstream churches in America have been playing the “Whack a Mole” game with drugs since the Puritans first landed at Plymouth Rock. First they “Whack” one drug down. Then another one pops up. Then they eliminate one drug lord and then another one pops up. They defeat one drug cartel and then another one takes its place. Our drug enforcement agencies are so busy playing “Whack a Mole” that they don’t have any time to deal with the reasons behind the influence and attraction of drugs. Instead they just keep on “Whacking Moles.”
- Defeat terrorism in the Mideast:
The beginning of terrorism in the Mideast can be traced back to the Assassins sect that began in the eleventh century. Wikipedia notes the following:
“Assassins (Persian|حشاشين}} Hashashin) is a name used to refer to the medieval Nizari Ismailis. Often described as a secret order led by a mysterious “Old Man of the Mountain”, the Nizari Ismailis were an Islamic sect that formed in the late 11th century from a split within Ismailism – itself a branch of Shia Islam.”
Modern terrorism is actually a form of asynchronous and asymmetric warfare. One side being more powerful than the other side (asymmetric) forces the other side to avoid one to one confrontations or pitched battles in favor of random unpredictable strikes (asynchronous). Terrorism is a means of striking back at a more powerful enemy and avoiding what might be an assured defeat by not confronting your opponent in a pitched battle. History is full of episodes where fighters and even entire armies engaged in such warfare. In the US, the Indian Wars often followed such methods of warfare. The battle against Geronimo being a prime example.
Terrorism in the Mideast since George H.W. Bush and through the Obama administration seems to be following the pattern that I have called “Whack a Mole.” Using drone attacks, surgical strikes, clean bombing, decapitation strikes, discriminant deterrence, hunter killer teams, kill boxes, and counterinsurgency attacks, the US military attempts to “neutralize” the power of the “terrorists” who have their own panoply of attack methods.
If you look at what has happened over the past twenty years in the Mideast in terms of the War on Terrorism, you can clearly see the “Whack a Mole” game at work. We eliminate one of their leaders, they destroy some of our soldiers with bombs, IEDs or suicide attacks. We then strike back at their leaders and then it is their turn again to kill us. We “Whack” them and then they “Whack” back.
Each time we kill one of their leaders, another one pops up to take their place. Each enemy group we defeat seems to be immediately replaced by another enemy group. Our Army, Navy Air Force, Marines, armament industries and politicians never seem to get tired of playing the “Whack a Mole” game. Keep in mind, that while the game might be great fun for these groups, there is a cost to the game. To date the financial and human costs are:
Financial Cost of the War on Terror :
“A recent Brown University study, for example, pinned the cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria at about $3.6 trillion from 2001 to 2016, using the $1.6 trillion operations costs as a baseline but also accounting for counterterrorism costs.
Adding in money appropriated for war spending and on homeland security in 2017, the total reaches $4.79 trillion. This figure also includes future obligations for veterans medical and disability costs ($1 trillion through 2053) as well as interest on borrowing for wars.” — Politifact, Linda Qiu, October 27th, 2016.
Human Costs of the War on Terror:
Afghanistan and Pakistan: 173,000 dead and 183,000 seriously wounded. (2001 to 2016)
Iraq: 1.9 million killed (1991 to 2003) and 1 million killed (2003 to 2015)
For the figures I used above as well as for other estimates and detailed breakdowns of casualty figures, see the following sources. The above figures are low compared to some estimates. None of these figures include the deaths in Libya, Syria, Israel, Turkey, USA or Palestine which should also be considered as deaths from the War on Terrorism.
- Middle East Eye
- Costs of War – Brown University Study
- Mint Press News
- Global Research
- Physicians for Social Responsibility – Body Count, Casualties after 10 years of the War on Terror, March 2015
- Stop the arms race:
The final example of a “Whack a Mole” game that we are caught in deals with our oft stated goal to stop creating more dangerous and more expensive weapons of war. We call this the “arms race” and we have played it with Great Britain, France, Russia and now China. I will briefly explain how the game works. You will readily see that it is a version of the “Whack a Mole” game.
Step 1, we conceive of a weapon that nobody else has or has even dreamt of having. It must be dangerous, expensive, frightening and have the potential to kill millions or at least thousands. Step 2, we spend billions of dollars on R&D to develop the weapon. Step 3, we then spend billions of dollars to produce the weapon. Step 4, we then sell the weapon to any military agency in our own country that will buy it. Step 5, after a sufficient period of time has elapsed (but before the weapon is obsolete), we sell it to other friendly countries that will buy it. We must start with the highest bidder. Step 6, after we have sold it to all our allies or potential allies, we wait until they have sold it to any potential enemies. This might take a year or so. Finally, after our enemies have now acquired the same weapon potential (even if in a slightly modified form) we then loudly proclaim that:
“Our nation’s security and ability to defend itself is being undermined by the weapons that our enemies have. We must build new and better weapon systems. We must increase defense spending. We risk falling behind in the ability to defend ourselves.”
Then we start the process all over again from Step 1.
It is the “Whack the Mole” game, albeit a modified version of the game. We build the weapons to whack our enemies and then they buy the weapons or build similar weapons to whack us back. Then we build weapons to counter their weapons and then they build or buy weapons to counter our weapons. We have been engaged in this game since 1776 with every single weapon system that has ever been devised. Think of the Atom bomb. How long did it take Russia to develop a similar bomb? Think of the Hydrogen bomb. How long did it take the Russians and others to develop a Hydrogen bomb?
Here is a list of rifles that have been used in the USA since the War of 1776. The following list does not include carbines. For a full list of weapon systems and their history see: List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces – Wikipedia
- M16A3 (5.56×45mm NATO) (USN SEALs and USN Seabees)
- M16A2 (5.56×45mm NATO) (USAF, USCG, and US Army)
- M27 IAR (Infantry Automatic Rifle) (5.56×45mm NATO) (USMC)
- Mk 16 Mod 0 (5.56×45mm NATO) (USSOCOM)
- Mk 17 Mod 0 (7.62×51mm NATO) (USSOCOM)
- M14 SMUD (Stand-off Munition Disruption rifle) (7.62×51mm NATO) (USAF)
- M39 Enhanced Marksman Rifle (7.62 NATO) (USMC)
- XM8 (Lightweight Assault Rifle system) (never issued) (5.56×45mm NATO)
- XM29 (Kinetic Energy and Airburst Launcher System; 5.56×45mm NATO and 20 mm airburst munition (XM1018)(early)/25 mm airburst munition) (experiment canceled)
- Advanced Combat Rifle entries (concluded 1991)
- Future Rifle Program entries (canceled)
- Special Purpose Individual Weapon (SPIW) entries (concluded/canceled)
- FN FAL (battle rifle, trialled as T48 against the T44 and T47 to replace the M1: lost to the former)
- Olin/Winchester Salvo Rifle (battle rifle, 5.56mm duplex)
- M14E1 (Selective Fire Rifle, 7.62×51mm NATO) (never standardized)
- M16A1 (5.56×45mm NATO)
- AR-15/Colt Model 601/602 (5.56×45mm NATO rifle) (USAF and SOF use only)
- XM22/E1 Rifle (Selective Fire Rifle, 5.56×45mm NATO)
- Mk 4 Mod 0 (Suppressed Rifle, 5.56×45mm NATO)
- M1 Garand Variants (E1-E6 and E9-E14) (Semi-Automatic Rifle, .30-’06)
- Mk 2 Mod 0/1/2 (Semi-Automatic Rifle, 7.62×51mm NATO)
- M1 Garand (Semi-automatic rifle, .30-06)
- M1941 Johnson rifle (Semi-Automatic Rifle, .30-’06)
- Model 45A
- M1946 rifle (never used in active duty)
- M1947 Johnson auto carbine (Semi-Automatic Rifle, .30-’06)
- Gyrojet rifle (13 mm) (never issued)
- Pedersen Rifle (.276) (competed unsuccessfully with M1 Garand to become primary service rifle)
- Pedersen Device (attachment for Springfield M1903, .30 conversion)
- M1918 BAR (.30-06)
- M1903/A1/A3 (Bolt-action rifle; .30-03, .30-06)
- M1917 Enfield (Bolt-action rifle)
- Model 1907/15 Berthier rifle (Bolt-action rifle)[14]
- M1916 Mosin–Nagant (Bolt-action rifle)[15]
- M1895 Navy (Navy Lee, 6 mm Navy)
- M1892/M1896/M1898 Rifle (a/k/a Krag Bolt Action Rifle; .30-40 Krag)
- M1885 Remington-Lee (Bolt-action rifle; .45-70 Gov)
- M1882 Short Rifle (.45-70 Gov.)
- M1882 Remington-Lee (Bolt-action rifle; .45-70 Gov.)
- M1879 Remington-Lee (Bolt-action rifle; .45-70 Gov.)
- Remington-Keene rifle (Bolt-action rifle; .45-70 Gov.)[16]
- M1875 Officers’ Rifle (.45-70 Gov.)
- M1873/M1879/M1880/M1884/M1888/M1889 Springfield (a/k/a Trapdoor Springfield;.45-70 Gov..: .45-55-405 & .45-70-500)
- M1872 Springfield (a/k/a Rolling Block Springfield; .50-70 Gov.)
- M1865/M1866/M1868/M1869/M1870 Springfield (a/k/a Trapdoor Springfield; .50-70 Government)
- Sharps carbine/rifle (Breech-loader; .42-60-410) (.52 caliber issued to Berdan’s 1st and 2nd US Sharpshooters in the US Civil War)
- Henry rifle (Lever-action; .44-26-200)
- Spencer rifle (Lever-action; 56-56 (.52-45-350))
- M1863 Springfield
- M1861 Springfield (.58)
- Colt revolving rifle (Colt Model 1855; 6/5-shot revolver rifle;.44/.56)
- Greene rifle (Bolt-action breech-loader)
- P53 Enfield (.577 (.58))
- P51 Enfield Musketoon (“Artillery Carbine”; 24″ barrel, .69)
- Model 1854 Lorenz rifle (Rifle-musket, .54, .58)
- M1859 Sharps (‘New model 1859’, breech loader; .52, .56)
- M1855 Rifle-Musket
- M1855 Rifle (Percussion muzzle-loader; 58-60-500)
- M1847 Musketoon (Springfield, .69)
- M1842 Musket (Percussion musket, .69)
- M1841 Rifle “Mississippi Rifle” (percussion muzzle-loader;.54, .58)
- M1840 Musket (flintlock musket;.69)(later percussion)
- M1835 Springfield (flintlock musket; .67 cal)
- M1819 Hall rifle (Harper’s Ferry;Breech-loader)
- Model 1822 Musket (Flintlock Musket) .69 (later percussion)
- Model 1816 Musket (Flintlock musket; .69) (Later Percussion)
- Model 1817 Rifle (‘Common rifle’;Derringer, Johnson, North and Starr; Flintlock rifle, .54) (later percussion)
- Model 1814 Common Rifle (Deringer, Johnson; Flintlock rifle; later percussion; .54)
- Springfield Model 1812 Musket (Flintlock musket; .69)
- Model 1808 Contract Musket (Flintlock musket; .69)
- Harper’s Ferry Model 1803 Rifle (Flintlock rifle; .54)
- Model 1795 Musket (Flintlock musket; .69)
- 1792 contract rifle (Flintlock rifle; .49)
- Charleville musket (Flintlock musket; .69)
- Brown Bess (Musket; .75)
- Kentucky Rifle (Flintlock rifle)
- Ferguson rifle (Flintlock breech-loader; .69)
Do we call this progress? Do you call this progress?
Conclusions:
I started this blog off with the comment that if we fail to connect the dots and see the patterns in our lives, we are doomed to keep repeating them and failure will never be far away. It is almost but not quite the same as forgetting the past. There is indeed a similarity between my comment and Santayana’s famous quote. However, I see it as a pattern that I have described as “Whack a Mole.” How long will we go on whacking moles, killing people, spending money that could go to education, health care or eliminating poverty?
Time for Questions:
Do you think that we should be playing “Whack the Mole?” How do we stop playing this game? Do you think it is human nature to keep fighting and killing others? Should we really be trying to ban every substance that people want to take?
Life is just beginning.
Falken: Did you ever play tic-tac-toe?
Jennifer: Yeah, of course.
Falken: But you don’t anymore.
Jennifer: No.
Falken: Why?
Jennifer: Because it’s a boring game. It’s always a tie.
Falken: Exactly. There’s no way to win. The game itself is pointless! But back at the war room, they believe you can win a nuclear war. That there can be “acceptable losses.”
Karen says that I should start our annual holiday letter off because I write better than she does. Well, since it is the holiday season, I will let her slide. For my part, (Karen will add hers in a short while), I promise not to talk about politics, religion or philosophy. We are all sick of politics and you are probably only marginally interested in the latter two topics. What’s left then? Well, I was thinking that I just turned 70 in September. I never believed that I would see 30 years of age. Now here I am 4 decades later pondering the same mysteries of life that I pondered forty years ago. Feeling a little nostalgic, I got to thinking about the “firsts in my life.” For instance, my first kiss and my first job. So how about participating in a little nostalgia here and fire up your memories as well. I have posted a list of “my firsts” with my responses to each item. List is on the left with my responses to each one on the right. Can you remember your answers to my list? I would love to hear your list of firsts. Please post your FIRSTS in the comments section if you can remember what they are and don’t mind sharing.
Hi all. I think I’ll stick with my firsts for the past year. My first Dulcimer Jamboree in April, 2016 in Mountain View AR where I met the dulcimer 9 years ago. A fateful meeting it was. My first chromatic travel dulcimer which I took with me to New York in Nov. My first raised bed garden this past summer made from old discarded stock tanks. It produced more food than we could eat and it was so easy to weed and harvest. My first grandson, Garrick, getting married to Kat this coming spring. My first viewing of an opera at the Metropolitan Opera in NYC. My first concert in Carnegie Hall. My first trip up the Statue of Liberty and out to Ellis Island to look for ancestors.
It’s been a full, fun and sometimes exhausting year. We still work part time to support our “snow birds” lifestyle. I’m working with start-up home care agencies, teaching and consulting, and ICD 10 coding. John has taught both on-line and residence classes. We escaped our part time work with trips down to Kentucky for Kentucky Music Week, trips to the ocean in Puerto Penasco, Mexico, and a fall anniversary trip to Bayfield, WI. And, of course, the trips back and forth from WI to AZ where John tries to find new unspoiled routes each time we go.
Jesus talked about the three classes of good people. The first class hears his message but has little time to do anything about it. The second class hears the message and when convenient they try to help others and spread the message of Jesus. The third class commits their body and soul to sharing Jesus’s message. The third class of men/women make a commitment to doing this year round and 24/7. For the third class, it is not a onetime thing or something to be done when they have time or are not busy. It is a lifetime commitment to share his message with the world.
The Joy of Christmas is a state of fulfillment, contentment and gratitude. Through the love of others who give selflessly of themselves, we can all be free to experience a Joy that cannot be bought or traded. It is one of the reasons that giving and not receiving is said to be the true path to happiness. During the holidays, we are excited about the chance to give to others. And nowhere is that feeling of giving more delightful than in watching the face of a young child receive something that we know they really wanted. However, Joy to the World should mean more than just giving toys to tots. There are physical gifts which we can give but there are also emotional and spiritual gifts as well.
I am frequently critical of all the toy drives that I see going on at Christmastime. Not just because I think most kids in America have more toys than they know what to do with, but because of the message that this sends. Why not I ask, have a “books for tots” drive? Why not give books for a present? Why is it always about toys? We become so narrowly focused that we lose sight of the larger picture.
Thus, Jesus did not come to replace the commandments but he did come to go beyond the commandments. God brought the commandments to Moses but the message that Jesus brought to us is in addition to the commandments. Jesus extended the Ten Commandments with a list that has come to be known as the Eight Beatitudes. A beatitude is something that gives one both happiness and blessedness. Jesus gave these Eight during his famous Sermon on the Mount:
I am continually surprised by so-called Christians who seem to revel in the Ten Commandments but treat the Eight Beatitudes as though they were bastard children of Satan. When was the last time you heard anyone wanting to put up a statue or sculpture or sign with the Eight Beatitudes on it? The Message of Christmas is the Eight Beatitudes. The Joy that Jesus wanted to bring to the world can only come by following the Eight Beatitudes. If you call yourself a Christian but you do not practice these in you daily life, then you are not spreading the Gospel of Jesus.
words of the Beatitudes go beyond any one religion. They speak to a way of being in the world and a way of treating other human beings. Just as I have found valuable teachings in other religions, I think more Christians should be willing to share the Message of Jesus in the Eight Beatitudes. Keep in mind though, that sharing this message will never work unless you also live by the message. You must be the change you want to see in others. Do you know what the famous Indian Chief Sitting Bull said when asked what he thought of Christianity? Chief Sitting Bull replied: “I have read your Bible and the religion seems good but I do not see many White people practicing it.”
Satan: “Do you want to concede and I will just take them all down to Hell?”
God: “The interesting thing about humans is not their stupidity and evilness. It’s the surprising amount of love that they can sometimes show for others. I am ever the optimist. That is my role, to be the Eternal Optimist. I have had hopes since the first cave men and since Moses and Socrates and Jesus and Mohammed and Gandhi and King and Mandela that humans have a spark in them. A spark that when ignited can change themselves and the world into something beautiful. Something that is so beautiful, it is even beyond anything I might have created.”
Satan: “You know I don’t care one way or the other. I have no feelings to be hurt. I cannot gloat or feel any satisfaction. Whenever, a new soul comes down to Hell, it is no sense of pride or satisfaction to me. These humans seem to mistake my logic and justice for evil. I am the parent who dispenses the discipline and they see me as the mean and cruel one.”
Satan: “But they never learn. They are shortsighted, petty, vindictive and greedy. Do you really think they care about your teachings or precious commitment to love and peace? They would rather fight wars and dominate others. They even fight wars in your name. Their religions scream for violence over other religions. Their leaders preach victory over other nations. Their minion’s rape and pillage in the name of some esoteric ideology. They all believe they are superior to each other. They send their own children to die in wars of so called freedom and liberation. They abuse and murder their own spouses at alarming rates. They teach their offspring at an early age to be intolerant of other races. And they pray in your name for the power to be successful in all of these efforts. They invoke prayers to you before murdering millions. How can you listen to these prayers and want to help these hypocrites.”
God: “You count them out too fast. The clock was close to 12 with nuclear weapons but as you noted, they carefully avoided destroying themselves. They are often very shortsighted and many of them will never be long-term thinkers. However, there are enough who care and who are passionate enough about others to help save humanity. I can’t help being filled with astonishment at the love that humans frequently have for each other.”
Denial generally means that we refuse to accept any logic, evidence, experience, data, facts, authority or any other means of Truth finding. It is an outright refusal to accept anything that will change the deniers mind. One example of this is the current debate (at least among some) as to the issue of global warming. Climate deniers argue that there is no change in the overall earth’s temperatures and that the warming is simply consistent with overall weather patterns in the earth’s history. Those opposed to this view point to a considerable stockpile of evidence, facts and data to show that the weather changes are not part of a historical pattern but are indeed a change in past weather patterns. Nevertheless, climate deniers refuse to change their minds.
Thus, we typically ignore or give a pass to someone who is “delusional” because we think either they are sick or that they are not in a good state to make decisions. No sane person would try to talk or argue a person who is delusional out of their Delusions. However, what if the person is sane and they engage in Delusions? This seems impossible but it happens all the time. One example will suffice: Anderson Cooper was interviewing some Trump supporters on his show. He asked one young woman what it was she liked about Trump. Her response was “He is just like us, except he is a billionaire.” Millions of Americans seemed (if voting was any indication) to agree with this statement. To any logical person looking at the background, upbringing and behavior of Trump, this statement would seem ludicrous. It would seem to indicate an extreme case of delusional thinking. But, by all standards of psychiatric analysis, this woman and her supporters are not insane.
The basic premise of the work by Kahneman and others in his field is that while most of us try to be logical and rational, our decision making is often flawed by biases and heuristics that influence our decisions. The book Judgment Under Uncertainty catalogs the major types of cognitive errors that we make and gives many examples of each. One of the most common ones that many people recognize has been called the “Gamblers Fallacy.” Let us say that you are rolling a dice. The odds of any one number being rolled are 6 to 1. So let us say that you roll four three times in a row. What are the odds that you will roll a 4 on your next toss? Higher or lower than 6 to 1? Many if not most people would now assume the odds against rolling another four might be 30 or even 40 to one. In fact, the odds for rolling a four on the next toss are still 6-1. This fact would surprise many people. Mentally, we confuse the odds of an individual toss with the odds of running a series. The odds of rolling four in a row on a dice are much greater than the odds of rolling any particular number. What are the odds of rolling a number four times in a row on a dice? We can calculate it as follows:
After even a slight perusal of these fallacies, you might be thinking: “Why bother, we can never find the Truth, there are too many roadblocks out there.” It probably seems like a hopeless task, something akin to finding the Holy Grail or the Ten Commandments. I admit that the recent Presidential election and its results would seem to support the invincible nature of stupidity and ignorance. The world seems overwhelmed with those who would dwell in biases, bigotry and hypocrisy and have little interest in finding the Truth. The Truth becomes whatever they are told or choose to believe. The media parrots disinformation, misinformation and outright lies. How can anyone find the Truth amidst this forest of propaganda and distortion?
One of the most unnerving but interesting books I have ever read was the book “True Believer” by Eric Hoffer. This book explains the thinking or lack of thinking behind zealots, fanatics and what Hoffer calls “True Believers.” After reading this book, it was clear to me that ideologies, whether left wing, right wing, fascist or even liberal could be dangerous. The Greek Golden Mean “All things in moderation” kept coming to my mind. A “True Believer” will not tolerate or listen to dissent or argument. They are so convinced that their way is the only way that dialogue and discussion with them is fruitless. In fact, many “True Believers” will happily kill you for their ideology.
Furthermore, because our ideologies are so good, we cannot believe that anyone has the right to reject them. We do not care if the rest of the world does not want to share them, we will bomb and kill you until you see how good our ideologies are. We are totally closed minded in our belief that Democracy and Free Enterprise are truly universal virtues that the rest of the world must adopt. We have become a nation of True Believers in the “American Dream.”
Emotional biases are formed by experiences or ideas derived from each of the four categories of knowing and believing that I briefly discussed earlier. We can derive an emotional bias from a strong attachment to anything and it does not matter whether we have Facts, Data, and Evidence. An emotional bias comes from the heart as opposed to a cognitive bias which comes from the brain. Of course, in practice both sets of biases tend to overlap and support each other. Someone with a strong cognitive bias can become very emotional about their beliefs and someone with a strong emotional bias may tend to only accept Facts which support their bias. In either case, we face the same difficulties with trying to get the individual to seek the Truth. Notice, I did not say see the Truth. Perhaps, some or more of what they already believe is the Truth or at least part of the Truth.
I am working to prepare for a chess match with my neighbor. I happen to note in the paper the Fact that tomorrow will be a quarter moon. Does this Fact have any relevance to my playing chess? I don’t think so. Thus, I don’t really care that there will be a quarter moon. As far as my limited cognition or perception, I can see no relevance between the Fact of a quarter moon and my preparing for my chess match. I could be wrong. We can always mis-perceive the relevance of some information to an issue. This is often done in science and in police work. We don’t see the connection between two issues and we misjudge the outcomes. This provides one good reason for diversity and numbers in problem solving. You have less chance of being blindsided if you have a variety of opinions rather than just your own.
Let us look at another example where the issue of relevance is more salient. I am planning to go on a trip to England in 2017. I want to plan my trip for the best possible time of the year. I hypothesize that two Facts or Data points are very important to my planning. The first is the temperatures at various times of the year in England. The second is the rain fall. I found the ranges for this data on a weather site and used the information to plan my trip. Of course, some of the decisions anyone makes will depend on their own weather preferences. I wanted to minimize rainfall and also keep the temperature in a moderate range. What I call sweater weather. Thus, both these set of factors were relevant and important to my planning. I would call them Evidence to support the time of year that I decided to go.
On the other hand, if you like rain, you might have picked a different time of the year than I did. There were other mitigating factors which played a role in my decision making. These factors included costs for lodging during the year and transportation costs during the year. In general, off season times have better rates but are somewhat the worse for weather. Another factor was the value of the pound to the dollar. I considered the value of the dollar to the pound post Brexit but concluded that I did not have enough information to effectively evaluate the impact of this data on my decision. I am assuming that with the volatility involved in the situation, the value of the dollar might go either way against the pound. My best guess is that I will benefit if I go as soon as possible. The news has recently noted that after Brexit the value of the pound fell 14 percent against the dollar. This would mean I could get a significant cost advantage if I purchase anything in England. I am hoping this situation will continue until after my trip but there are too many variables at play here for me to use this information. I can only hope.
A more common example of relevance can be found by looking at police work. We are all familiar these days with what is called Forensic science. I am sure most of you reading this have watched some police show. As soon as a crime is discovered, the Crime Scene Unit (CSI) is brought in to collect Evidence. Keep in mind that everything at a crime scene is not Evidence. Only what may have a possible relationship to the crime. This can be a real problem. The CSI unit is going to be limited by their assumptions concerning what might be relevant. For instance, I doubt any Crime Scene Investigator will care whether or not the light bulbs are “bright” or “soft white” in the kitchen or bathroom. It is impossible to collect all the “Evidence” of stuff that might be related to the crime. Thus, relying on experience and training, the police investigators do their best to collect Facts and Data that appear to be relevant to the crime. The relevant Data and Facts are not just interesting, they are Evidence. The more they relate to the crime, the stronger the Evidence will be.
An eyewitness can provide Evidence via his/her testimony as to the events of a crime. The relevance of any eyewitness is high but the reliability of an eyewitness can be much lower. Second hand testimony is not as relevant as first hand testimony and is thus weaker Evidence. Testimony that might be compromised by some factors such as police record, bias, discrimination, physical disabilities might be relevant but will be weaker Evidence because the validity of the Evidence is suspect. That is why lab procedures and chain of custody is so important to police work. They may have the most relevant Evidence imaginable but if the validity of the Evidence can be comprimised because of sloppy police work, the Evidence will be useless.
It is seldom that findings of Evidence in police work or business are subjected to as much scrutiny as occurred in the so called development of cold fusion. Perhaps, since this was a finding of great scientific importance, it was held to a more rigorous standard than would occur in many other scientific studies. I am thinking in particular of findings in the health field, nutrition field and drug field. In each of these fields we often have much less rigor before results are posted or accepted. Business is even worse with advertisers spouting outright lies and fabrications. Little known phenomenon are routinely heralded as being highly reliable Evidence of the benefit of some product or service that someone wants to sell you. All kinds of spurious Facts and Data are then marshaled as Evidence to support the phony claims by Madison Avenue advertisers.
When I started working with Process Management International in 1986 after completing my doctorate degree at the University of Minnesota, I met the famous quality improvement expert and renowned statistician, Dr. W. E. Deming. Over the next seven years, he had the most profound influence on my life in terms of helping me to understand process improvement, statistics, quality and the use of Data to improve everything from widgets to health care. Under the influence of Dr. Deming, our company adopted his motto “In God we trust, all others bring Data.” Dr. Deming also said “Without Data, you’re just another person with an opinion.” So what is Data? 
If we understand what Data is, you have now entered the deep forest. However, we have a long way to go before we can get out of the forest. There are numerous obstacles along the way. Referring again to the concepts of validity and reliability, we must ask ourselves the same questions we asked about our Facts. Is our Data reliable and valid? How did we collect the Data? What method did we use to collect the Data? Are we taking a few samples each day for several weeks or are we taking a few samples for only a few days? Are we using a random sample or a stratified random sample? Different methods of collecting Data will lead to different results. And we are not even talking about interpreting the Data yet. For instance, when I worked at W.T. Grants cutting shades back in the late 60’s, I was told to make sure I took my measurements with a metal tape measure and not a cloth or plastic measure. The reason given was that it was easier to stretch a cloth tape measure and get a false result. This would lead to cutting a shade that was too large and would not fit.
Unfortunately, the scientific method is not infallible. It is subject to bias and disagreement over Data and interpretations. Even more problematic is that the scientific method is not a strong method when it comes to testing subjective theories that cannot be verified by Fact. For instance, “Is the Mona Lisa beautiful?” As stated, this is a subjective question that each individual will hold a different opinion on. However, if I asked: “Is the Mona Lisa the most beautiful painting in the world?” I could attempt to answer that question with a bit more objectivity. I could conduct a survey to see what percentage of people think it is the most beautiful. Subjective studies are not as strong as objective studies since they usually lead to results that follow a bell shaped curve. Thus, if we conducted the above survey, we would probably find that a certain percentage of people thought it was the most beautiful painting and a certain percentage did not. As in politics, opinions of beauty would be all over the place. This is why politics is so much more difficult to “Fact check” than issues like the atomic mass of hydrogen. Politics is a very subjective field that resists efforts to test and Fact check. Some examples that would be difficult to test with the scientific method would include:
Finally, if I have left you with some understanding of the difficulty with interpreting Data, I will have felt successful. The first step to knowledge is awareness of our cognitive limitations. We also need to be more skeptical when people present us with Facts and Data. My father used to say “Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see.” I still consider this good advice. There are too many fools and charlatans out there trying to convince us of things for a multitude of reasons that will benefit them and not us. Just as we would not walk down a dark alley in an unknown city by ourselves, we need to exercise caution when presented with Data and Facts. The more we understand the limits of Data and Facts, the more prepared we will be to make decisions based on Data and Facts that have a higher degree of validity and reliability. If the Data, Facts and Evidence that you base your knowledge on are not accurate than everything you think you know will be at best a half truth and at worst a total lie.
“The prosecution had expert witnesses that testified that the Evidence was often mishandled. Photos were taken of critical Evidence without scales in them to aid in measurement taking; items were photographed without being labeled and logged, making it difficult, if not impossible, to link the photos to any specific area of the scene. Separate pieces of Evidence were bagged together instead of separately causing cross-contamination; and wet items were packaged before allowing them to dry, causing critical changes in Evidence.” 
A validity error is when we are not measuring the right thing. IQ tests have been repeatedly criticized for not really measuring the intelligence of a human being or for being biased by many cultural Factors. Thus opponents of IQ tests argue that they are not valid measures of intelligence. A reliability error is when our measures are not consistent. The scale example given above illustrates the problem with reliability. Most people use a scale to weight themselves and most scales have problems with reliability. However, if you tried to equate your weight with your health, you would be assuming that the scale could also measure health and this would be a problem with validity. Scales cannot measure health although health might be correlated to some degree with appropriate height and weight.
Before we move on to looking at the concept of Data, we will look at two more problems with the concept of Facts. These are distortion and bias. Distortion relates to twisting the meaning of something. This can happen by taking something that someone has said out of context. For instance, I might be talking at a conference and say something in sarcasm such as “Yeah, I will definitely vote for Trump.” My words could be repeated verbatim and it would sound like I was endorsing Trump. It is difficult to detect sarcasm. To most people reading or hearing my words second hand, it will sound like I am a strong Trump supporter. Slick politicians and advertisers will often distort a Fact to make it sound like the Fact is supporting their position.
Production Manager: Jesus Christ, you are fired. I have told you repeatedly that your job is to help us make a profit, not to take care of the sick and needy. I am sorry but I am going to have to let you go. I wish I could give you a good reference but you just don’t belong in the business world.
Advertising Manager: Jesus Christ, you are fired. You can’t tell people the truth about our client’s products. Your job was to make this stuff look good. But no, you kept telling people the truth. You are too honest and you will never make a good marketing person. I suggest you find another outlet for your talents.
Employment Counselor: Well, Jesus, if you were asked about your future plans and what you wanted to aspire to, could you maybe forget about the sacrifice thing and just talk about how hard you can work?
Aging Capriciously 