People have issues

On just about any subject you will find seemingly intelligent people on opposite sides of the issue. Each side will provide evidence that contradicts the other. Most of the time, a person's choice of sides is completely arbitrary, depending on what demographic to which they belong.

So who to believe? Unfortunately, most people will not even consider asking this question of themselves. They simply march lock-step in time with their chosen propaganda machine and remain blissfully ignorant - content with life as they know it. It is a sad commentary on Western Civilization that logical thinking is despised. From the time we were in grade school, anyone displaying the ability to think on a level even slightly above the average, they begin to draw the ire of fellow students and the epithets begin. Nerd, dweeb, dork, geek, etc. those lucky enough to have some athletic ability can redeem themselves by masquerading as a jock. Those who lack the social skills to overcome being the object of scorn and derision become pariahs. In addition, in certain parts of the country, in certain demographic groups, there are those who accuse their peers of being race traitors if they attempt an academic pathway in life.

Let's face it: being smart is intimidating for a lot of people. And there are a lot of smart people that enjoy lording it over other people. They mention the results on the last IQ test they took. They remember what their SAT scores were. They announce that they belong to Mensa. Anyone bragging about what they can do better than you is irritating, but smart people bragging about how smart they are is perhaps the most irritating of all. No one likes feeling inferior. When one's inferiority is pointed out to them, either directly or indirectly, they feel threatened. A usual first reaction is anger and frustration, and sometimes to return the perceived threat with violence.

The same thing happens when seemingly intelligent people find themselves on opposing sides. Rarely does logical discussion ensue (at least on television). Usually things devolve quickly into a shouting match or ad hominem attacks. The issue itself is drowned in a muddy river of insults and non sequiturs.

So ask yourself why you believe the way you do. Because that expert over there says so? There's another expert over here that contradicts her. How much research have you actually done yourself? How much of it was on one side of the issue? What were the sources? Who funded the study? What motives may be involved in the conclusions? Are the PhDs actually doctors in the field of study on which the paper was based?

Government tyranny

It's been two years since I quit the major party to which I belonged. The two major parties are not interested in following the Constitution of the United States. They are interested in power and control. Machiavelli, in The Prince, said: "…a wise prince ought to adopt such a course that his citizens will always in every sort and kind of circumstance have need of the state and of him, and then he will always find them faithful." The two parties are executing this advice perfectly. We are more and more in every circumstance in need of the government. In fact, a large portion of the populace actually prefers it that way. Just ask around about national health care. You will find that many, many people want to depend on the government for that.

The federal government has usurped control of much of our daily lives. From helmet and seatbelt laws to what kind of eggs you can eat. What's that? I know, but what do you think is going to happen once national health care is passed? Since your health will directly affect the cost of the national program, your diet will be federally mandated. Scoff now, you have been warned.

Read 1984. We are so close to what Orwell described as thoughtcrime, it's just a matter of semantics now. Consider the term hate-crime. Explain to me how anyone can know what motives prompted Johnny down the street to take a baseball bat and beat up Joey. Someone explain to me how it makes a difference to Joey's parents whether Johnny hates the group to which Joey belongs. Their son's skull has been bashed in one way or the other. You tell me: should Johnny's punishment be different based on whether he hates Joey's group, or if he just felt bored that day and picked Joey at random? The invention of something called hate-crimes is an admission that we have thought police in this country. One should be allowed to think what they want. Hate me for my political beliefs, hate me for believing that global warming is a hoax, hate me for the color of shirt I am wearing today. But if you come key my car, should it really matter why you did it? Should it really matter if someone committed some crime because they hate the ethnic, religious, or orientation group to which their victim belongs? The point is, they committed a crime and it should be punished.

The US Supreme Court has usurped power and legislated from the bench. I am going to use the Roe v Wade decision to demonstrate this. Before you have a cow and dismiss me, understand this: The US Constitution has Amendment IX, which states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And Amendment X which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." There is nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion, the right to have one, or a law prohibiting the states from making laws concerning it. Before Roe v Wade, there were states that legalized it. There were some states that made it illegal. This is how the Constitution was supposed to work, leaving things up to the people of the several states to decide. Along comes the US Supreme Court and, based upon a clause in another Amendment, essentially passes a law: states can no longer make the decision to pass their own laws regarding abortion. Whammo, the federal government has a bit more control.

Now take the Kelo v. City of New London case. Yadda, yadda, yadda… and now we have no private property rights.

Socialists gleefully agree with these sorts of decisions. There is one problem. Socialism has spawned the most evil governments ever seen in human history. You may not know about most of the atrocities committed, but this is only because the people in control of the dissemination of that information are loathe to point out the follies of a philosophy to which they adhere. "If only," they think, "us good guys were in control - then it would work right." Socialism? You should study up on that, too. The US is a socialist country, and becoming more so every day. People want it that way. Just look at the health care issue. The two main parties agree on socialism, they have only minor disagreements with how fast we should barrel down that hill.

Self-indulgent ignorance

Everyone is ignorant about many things. For instance, I don't have the foggiest idea about how to assemble a hydrogen-powered arcjet engine. I'm no rocket scientist.

There are two basic reasons why people remain ignorant.
1) They do not have the ability to acquire and retain the new information
2) They do not have the desire to acquire and retain the new information

Let's look at it. Most fields of study appeal to individuals in different ways. One person might have a knack for anatomy and become a surgeon. Another might have an innate ability to fix automobile engines and becomes a mechanic. Which one is smarter? It would be completely arbitrary to make such a judgment based on chosen career paths. Mechanics, perhaps, need less schooling than a surgeon does, but a surgeon only needs to know the anatomy of one body type: humans. On the other hand, mechanics need to know the insides of any number of makes and models of cars and trucks - foreign and domestic. Your local mom-n-pop grocer may have a PhD in geology, physics or art history and you would never know it as you purchase that pack of gum. And that nerdy computer programmer you know could possibly win 2 million bucks on Jeopardy. One's chosen career path has something to do with interests and abilities, but not necessarily one's capacity to assimilate new information when it is presented.

If a person's intelligence is not limiting them, then a person's desire to know something becomes the major factor deciding whether they learn it.

(What follows is an example. I do not have anything against French Impressionists.)

If I do not want to know more about French Impressionism, then I am unlikely to go out of my way to study up on it. I am also unlikely to listen closely to someone trying to explain it to me. Now suppose that I, for some reason, have a deep animus towards impressionists. Now whenever I encounter a situation where impressionists come up, I might actively resist learning anything new, or perhaps what I learn is tainted or twisted by my prejudice.

With this example, you can see that I have become self-indulgently ignorant of French Impressionism. The things that I know are combined with my feelings of dislike and become an intractable view. No amount of logic or discussion will convince me otherwise. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Until the desire to open my mind is there, my opinion wont change.

There used to be something called open-mindedness. A person does not necessarily have to change their mind to have an open mind. Too many people think the opposite. If I know that by mathematical definition 2+2=4 then it is not closed minded to reject the idea that 2+2=5. However, if someone wanted to explain the logical progression of mathematical steps on how they reach such a conclusion, then I would listen and attempt to understand their point of view. It would not do me any good to project onto this individual my own prejudice that a pair of 2s will be 4. Even if I am right, and 2+2 remains 4, it would behoove me to understand where this "5" person is coming from. They could actually have a rational explanation from their point of view. Or they could be a crackpot who is simply trying to irritate me. I should find out which.

Finding out how the other person thinks is key to understanding why they think the way they do. Seemingly intelligent people are on both sides of almost every issue. From abortion to national health care, school vouchers to school busing, the war on drugs to the war on terrorism.

Many issues are demagogued to the point where all rational thought is dismissed. Too many people have ceased to think out things and rely completely on their feelings. Feeling are good, they lead to compassion and service. But if all decisions were based on feelings without incorporating some pragmatism, then you will end up making more mistakes than need be.

My fellow human beings

People are rude. People are careless. People are apathetic.

On the other hand:

People are compassionate, helpful, and involved.

Why does it seem that I meet more folks belonging to the former group than the latter? Let's take driving for instance. Keep track of how many times in the next week someone either cuts you off, or waves you into the gap. Or how many times you see someone being a jerk as opposed to how many polite acts you witness.

People you meet driving are comparable to people you meet on the internet. In both cases, there is anonymity involved. More so on the internet, yes, but have you noticed that people in line at the grocery store are much more polite to each other than people queued up in a merge lane? I am aware that exceptions exist, however those seem more anecdotal than the general rule.

When people feel that they are anonymous, they seem to devolve into that base state of humanity where anything goes. It goes hand-in-hand with mob mentality. People in mobs loot, burn, and assault when they normally would not think of doing these things if they were alone. Folks in their cars and folks on the internet are the same way. Whatever level of depravity someone is at by default, they seem to set the bar a couple of notches lower when they feel there are no consequences.

What does this say for society in general? I am speaking from the standpoint of Western culture. If people will adjust their behavior down when they think they can get away with something, then what does it say about that individual? When a person can log on and become an entirely different person, why would they choose to be a Neanderthal rather than a Philosopher? An obscenity-spewing, racist, rabblerouser rather than a polite, considerate gentleperson.

In pseudo anonymous situations, many people choose to be themselves. Others choose their alter-ego. If the internet is any indication of these choices, it would seem that most people are boorish and moronic, while the diminishing minority of people hold themselves to at least a modicum of self-respect.

It's sad really. I am afraid we are living in an era later to be known as the "Fall of Western Culture".