The Four Objections: Four Quandries Presented by the Climate Change Issue

The Four Objections: Four Quandaries Presented by the Climate Change Issue

First off, let me say that this is not all my own work. Many people have pointed to similar things as I will list here (possibly even listed them as a group), so what I am really doing is explaining these Objections as I see them and in my own words. So without further ado, let me begin:

Number One: What is the 'Change' in 'Climate Change'?

More specifically, what will change, where, how much and when will it change? If this is not clearly known, then why on Earth would anyone be afraid? I understand when an assertion is proposed that the Earth is warming. I understand an assertion claiming that the oceans are rising. But how warm will it get? How high will the ocean levels rise? And much more importantly, what will that do to the actual climate?

Humans do best in warm areas and coastal areas. Is a warmer planet something to fear? How warm would it need to become for it to become uninhabitable to humans? How high would the oceans have to rise --and how swiftly-- to be a threat to humans? And most importantly, is either of those two things supported climate models that are backed by accurate predictions?

Is it more storms that we are supposed to be worried about, or desertification, or more snow? Have any of those things been predicted? I recall hearing repeatedly when major storms and hurricanes hit, that such things 'could be' a result of Climate Change, but no one would offer anything to prove it. It was always, 'Well, this might be....'. Sorry, 'might be' isn't going to scare me. Because 'might be' implies 'might not be' and even more so, there is the possibility that --rather than something fearful-- something wonderful could happen.

What if, as the Earth warmed, weather patterns shifted and provided reliable rain to extremely arid regions? What if millions of square miles in northeastern Asia became very nice for humans to live in? What if? If there is an open question as to what specifics something like Climate Change will bring, then aren't the benefits just as likely as the detriments?

If I am supposed to be concerned about Climate Change, then I need to know exactly what the expected consequences are and exactly why those are to be feared. Otherwise, I will trust in human ingenuity and adaptability and not worry about a changing future. Who ever said the future is--or is supposed to be-- predictable?




Number Two: Where is the scientific method behind Climate Change?

Science exists for just one reason: to allow humans to reliably predict the future. Without the ability to predict the future more accurately than other means of functioning in the world, science is useless. Utterly useless. I can go into much deeper detail on this, but I trust that (for the purposes of this essay) the reader understands this point.

SO how is Climate Change doing with the predictions? Where are the predictions that came true?This has been a very sore spot with Climate Change proponents, and I can see why, with a failure to make good predictions comes a failure of the Climate Change model itself. That is how real science works. Once you are able to make predictions you are in a position to advance the hypothesis into becoming a full theory. Without that, you must keep going back around to re-examine the hypothesis. The process becomes stuck in a tedious loop. People hate tedium. They want to 'just get on with it. Those who don't understand the importance of this part of the process will laughably insist that the 'science is settled' ad move forward--as if the models were working, when they plainly are not.

So that is the second objection. Climate Change is stuck in the development process as it keeps failing to make accurate predictions and thus keeps failing to advance according the the scientific method.





Number Three: "Do as I say, not as I do" said Al Gore nervously.

This third objection is less about the scientific process and more about the broader perspective of how Climate Change is viewed by the public-- who are the presumed audience of the Climate Change presentation. When you have Al Gore (and many, many others, mind you) telling you that CO2 driven Climate Change is a threat to everyone on Earth and then he jets around the world (released an inordinate amount of CO2) and he returns to his home (which uses many times the average amount of electricity from a coal-fired power-plant grid), it looks a bit strange. How can he think releasing CO2 is a threat when he goes about doing it (much more than an average person does) with nary a care? Or look at all the Hollywood celebrities; how can Leonardo DiCaprio seriously be telling people to cut their carbon emissions when he consumes so very much fossil-fuel energy? How can any of them? At least they could take their vast fortunes and make their homes energy sufficient. But how many of them do? I think it is fair to say that any of those who do not take drastic measures to limit the amount of carbon that they are putting into the air become complete hypocrites when they lecture anyone else to do so.

At least when 'the little people' think that putting CO2 into the atmosphere, they can plausibly use the 'hardship' excuse for why they don't stop using fossil fuels (we will becoming back to that excuse though). But what excuse have the wealthy? Basically, they are acting as if they don't really believe that Climate Change is a threat. And I think it is fair to conclude that they don't.

BUT, when the leaders of a movement don't believe in the ideas of the movement, doesn't that undermine the whole thing? Think of how much trouble has been caused by Catholic leadership not acting as if the respected the lives destroyed by the actions of a few of their priests? Even if one would argue that the higher idea of God having a church on Earth were to be defended, there is no denying that it hurt the Catholic church in trying to get out the message and in trying to do good work--because people felt betrayed. Shouldn't people now feel betrayed by the actions of the leadership of the Climate Change movement?






Number Four (aka 'The Dozy'): So, what are you gonna do?

Ok, if you found the other Three Objections able to be bypassed (I'd like to know how, btw) this is where you stop. Regardless of the science, the public relations and the threat of Climate Change, there is one inescapable truth: There is nothing you can do.

Hold on. Let me clarify this.

There is no way (no matter the reason and evidence) that you will ever persuade a majority of the world's people to support whatever action you think should be taken. There is no way that you will get half the people of the world to even understand what the threat of Climate Change *is* to them (intelligence distribution being what it is). We can't even get enough people to agree to stamp out human trafficking. We can get people to just 'not treat others in the way they wouldn't want to be treated' (an idea so simple a child can understand it). There is ZERO chance of ever getting a mandate from the people of the world to 'stop Climate Change' (even if that were both possible and desirable).

So then what? Take action in the absence of a mandate? Take action against a mandate to do nothing? What percentage do you think is required to justify taking action? What about preventing other people from putting more carbon into the atmosphere? What if a country that owns oil and coal decides to make power plants to burn them and tells everyone else to 'mind their own business'? Will you use force to stop them? Really? What if you have a plan to dump Sulfur Dioxide (or whatever) into the atmosphere to remove the carbon, and they say 'no'? Will you use force? Will they?

Once you start initiating force on other people, you lose whatever moral 'high ground' you thought you had. ESPECIALLY if you are not 100% certain that it is the only action that could be taken and that it must be taken.

But would even such things be enough? Wouldn't you have to stop using all fossil fuels on an industrial scale? As far as I know, that is the only known 'solution'. And what would that solution do? It would destroy the world's economies and condemn billions of people to abject poverty. And would even the Climate Change believers allow themselves to be subjected to such poverty? I think we already know. They are not doing it when it is not mandatory, why would we think they will co-operate, even if it were mandatory? They won't.

And that hasn't even addressed the issue of the people who might conclude that Climate Change will be good for humans. What would you do with them? More violence?

No, no matter how the Climate Change 'debate' progresses, in the end it comes to this. There is just no way to 'solve' it other than going around the rest of the people of the world, and using force (maybe quite a bit of force) against some of them. Will you create an apocalypse to prevent one?

Connecting the Dots: The DNC Hack

Connecting the Dots: The DNC Hack

Recently, the news has been atwitter with reports that the Russians hacked the DNC email and gave that information to Wikileaks for distribution. Let's review some fact --some of which you may not be aware of-- and make some conclusions and speculate just a little about what is really going on here. Let's 'connect the dots', as it were.

The facts:
Fact1. The Mainstream Media provided help to the DNC by giving them the questions before some of the debates were to occur.

F2. The DNC provided help to Hillary, but not to Bernie, by giving her the questions ahead of the debate.

F3. The DNC emails were gievn to Wikileaks for distribution.

F4. A few weeks after Wikileaks reported the emails, DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered in Washington DC, his wallet was not taken. He was killed by person or persons unknown for motives unknown.

F5. Wikileaks has indicated that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC leaks.

F6. The CIA has a 600 million dollar contract with Amazon.

F7. Amazon bought the Washington Post for 250 million dollars.

F8. After Benghazi, Obama said virtually the same thing with regard to the people responsible,

F9. Obama has brought no responsible party's to justice in the 4 years since Benghazi.

F10. Both the Mainstream Media and the DNC had a very high degree of confidence that Hillary would win the general election in November.

F11. Presidents usually win re-election and if Hillary had won in 2016, the DNC would not have had to go through another primary process until 2024.

F12. Ben Rhodes bragged about how reporters don't question news they are given, that reporters are young, inexperienced and easily duped.

Ok, those are quite a few facts, let us assemble them into some conclusions:

Conclusion1. The Mainstream Media's credibility has been badly damaged as it betrayed it's integrity (F1, F3)

C2. The DNC's credibility has been badly damaged as it betrayed the DNC voters and chose Hillary without regard to the wishes of DNC voters. (F2, F3)

C3. The DNC learned who had leaked the emails and murdered Seth Rich (F3, F4, F5)

C4: The same thing will happen to the latest target of Obama as the Benghazi perpetrators, that is to say 'nothing'.

So those are some reasonable conclusions that can be reached, with brings us to a point were we can speculate a little about what has happened since the election:

Speculation1: The DNC was shocked to find that not only had it lost, but that it would need to start running a nation primary in just 3 years (maybe less), not 7 years. What would DNC voters do, when reminded how the DNC had betrayed them in 2016? Perhaps DNC voters would conclude that the RNC was a party that could, at least, be trusted to honor the results of the primary--even when they obviously didn't like them. Would DNC voters flock to the RNC? If so, would the DNC be finished as a major political party? (F10, F11, C2)

S2: Establishment players of both the DNC and the RNC find value in preserving the status quo. If the DNC were finished as a major party, that would change politics in America for 2 generations, with unpredictable results. Would it really be that difficult for major establishment politicians to convince the CIA that the stability of the country were at stake? If so, then major establishment players (such a Diane Feinstein and John McCain) could entreat the CIA to help them preserve the 2-Party duopoly by having them speculate in the following manner:

If both the DNC and the RNC were 'hacked' by some 3rd party, then the DNC could claim that it is no worse that the RNC-- only that the RNC didn't have their information leaked. All it would take is a little speculation by some establishment politicians and a couple reporters and the rest of the Mainstream Media would run with it. Remember the Mainstream Media stands to gain from the narrative as well. (F6, F7, F12, C1, C4)

S3: DNC voters are particularly unhappy, not only were they betrayed, but it was all for nothing. And they really don't want to leave the DNC, but what choice have they?

Sometimes a person is betrayed by a spouse in the most blatant manner possible. This is the case with DNC voters and the DNC. And, just like a person who really doesn't want to leave, all the cheating spouse has to do is tell a lie. It doesn't matter that the lie is obvious and transparently false-- the person wants the lie to be true and will do everything possible to believe it. Just as DNC voters want something to believe, no matter how unfounded. If DNC voters can make themselves believe that somehow the DNC is not any more corrupt than the RNC, then they can stay with it-- and they want to!

And that is what this is all about. It has nothing to do with Russian hacking or Russians influencing the US national elections

This is about preserving the 2-party duopoly in the US and giving DNC voters something, anything to believe so that they can stay with the DNC. That is also why it has taken so long for this to come about, nearly a month after they lost the election the DNC realized that they had blown a hole in the side of their ship and that voters were going to abandon them. The need to make DNC voters think that the RNC ship is similarly weak with corruption so they don't leave.

And it worked. Look around, Democrats are more than happy with the smokescreen that has been thrown up-- just listen to how they speak about it. They want to believe it. They need to believe it.

Nothing will come of the investigations into the 'Russian involvement', but that won't matter. In 4 years (less!) DNC voters will say to themselves 'You know, I think there was more to the Russian hacking than we were told. I think they got the same kind of dirt on the RNC, but just didn't release it.'

'You can fool some of the people all of the time,
And you can fool all of the people some of the time...'

I think we figured out who the 'some of the people' are.

Why so Polemical?

Why so Polemical?

Let me give a little background for how I have arrived at the present time as a person whom some label as 'argumentative'. This begins many, many years ago when it occurred to me that if all the people who are capable of it would behave morally, the world would be a better place. I'm Captain Obvious, you say? Well, sure, but I wasn't speaking of anything complicated or as involved as morality found in religion. Just the most simple moral principle that could be followed by nearly everyone: "Don't treat others the way you wouldn't want to be treated". The Golden Rule. I'm not the only person, and I am far from the first, to observe that if everyone who was capable of it, would follow this simple rule, then most of the world's problems would simply vanish. That is where this story starts.

Fast forward to 6 years ago; In Wisconsin, the passage of Act 10 causes a massive uproar. This happens just as social media is coming into it's own and presents a great opportunity to learn about the views of conservatives and liberals from the people who hold them. I started having conversations and found that this was a fast way to reduce the number of people on a person's friends list. Sigh. Despite this effect, I persisted and trying to learn the mental machinery of both conservatives and liberals.

Fast forward to the present day; With the stunning defeat in state and national politics I sensed and opportunity to advance my knowledge. While prior to November 8th, liberals were unwilling to listen to the concerns of conservatives when their President sat in the White House with his pen and his phone, after November 8th things were very different. I expected that liberals would shift --wishing to be given a fair hearing themselves-- to grudgingly giving conservatives and their concerns a fair hearing. I was stunned when I found that even when their unethical behavior was pointed out liberals still completely refuse to give conservatives a fair hearing!

So clearly there is a ethical malfunction within the liberal mind, which is confounding enough. I have personally encountered individuals who will point-blank refuse to listen and understand the concerns of conservatives while yet wishing to have their own concerns heard and understood--in the present moment!

Why so Polemical?

I'm not, but I am short on patience because this sort of double-standard. It amounts to intentional hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is something that I find personally detestable (here is some of why that is). But I also find that this ethical malfunction of the liberal mind to be deeply disturbing for another reason...

How far does it go?? I wonder.

If liberals refuse to be ethical to conservatives in the political arena and the social arena, then where does it end? This is not an idle or capricious question, it is deadly serious.
Here's why:

We always wonder how things like the holocaust and Rwanda could happen. Clearly, such a thing cannot happen without the people involved suspending their ethics towards their victims.

Am I saying that there is a homicidal maniac within every liberal? Well, before the genocide, would any visitor to Rwanda have said that vast numbers of Rwandans are capable of the wholesale slaughter of other Rwandans? Would the same have been said of Germans of that time prior to the Holocaust?

So is there a homicidal maniac within every liberal?

I don't know. And the only way for me to find out is to have conversations and reach
understanding. BUT! Every single liberal I have encountered has been both unwilling to open up and
discuss their reasons and motivations (here is what I think of that) and uninterested in understanding the concerns of others.
Until I am able to find this out myself, the question of the depths of this dysfunction is very,
very concerning.



Footnote: While liberals may ultimately laugh at the whole issue, that is a fool's response for
two reasons: first, conservatives (or at least Republicans) are in a position to laugh right back
and do what they will with country and Wisconsin. Second, there are about 90 million people in the
country who are not amused and will keep the constitutionally protected arms nearby, just in case.

Half-Gods, Changelings and Trans-whatevers

Half-Gods, Changelings and Trans-whatevers

Last week conservative voice, Ben Shapiro blatantly refused to refer to a male reporter as a female while seated next that reporter on a discussion panel. The male reporter leaned in and placed his hand on the back of Shapiro's next while threatening him with the words 'Now cut that out, or you'll go home in an ambulance.'

Here's some thoughts about the reporter, who goes by the name 'Zoey Tur', the recent publicity about Mr. Jenner and other people who are like him:

Imagine for a moment that I claimed to feel like I was an angel, a cherub, who fell to Earth and was mistaken for a human baby (never mind what happened to the human baby); Or imagine I felt as if I were a 'changeling' and that I was actually an elf prince who had been switched with a human baby; Or imagine I felt that my 'real father' was the Olympian god Zeus and that I was one of the godlings such as Achilles or Hercules. And further imagine that I demanded that everyone else go along with my feelings and that I would actually threaten anyone who blatantly refused to play along.

No one would hesitate to call me out for such behavior and no one would hesitate to call the authorities if and when I issued my threats. Most people would regard me as delusional, but most people would also allow me to continue in my choice of expressing how I felt--until such expressions became disruptive or threatening to others.

So it is with all people who chose to express how they feel inside, others will tolerate it as long as it is not too disruptive. But no one will (or should) tolerate it when it becomes threatening. And that applies whether the person is claiming to be the son of a god and demands you call him 'Lord' or whether the person is claiming to be female and demanding you call him 'her'.

A person can ask that others respect how the feel inside and that they play along-- if he wants to be responsible and polite. A person can demand others play along--if he wants to be childishly irresponsible and rude. But if a person threatens others to respect how they feel inside and play along--then he has crossed the line.

I hear Mr. Shapiro is pressing assault charges against the man who grabbed him and threatened him in public. Good.




for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com
for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com

Road to Nowhere

Road to Nowhere

If you found yourself on a road to nowhere, how would you know it? Would you know it because you have been on it for so long without arriving? Would you know it because you aren't even sure where you're headed in the first place? Would you know it because you have no map, no odometer reading and no means of telling where you are at all? Would it be all of these things and more that tells you that you are on a Road to Nowhere?

This is about problem solving.

If you know where you are, and where you are going; if you have a compass and an odometer; if you have a map and a pencil and a car, then you have the means to solve the problem of getting from where you are to where you would like to be (geographically speaking). But if you are missing too many of these things, you will not be able to solve that problem, regardless of how much you say that you want to. And if, after a long while has passed, you are still not in possession of the means to solve your problem, it would be fair for others to question whether solving this problem is important to you at all.

Obviously, I'm not talking about making road trips. As I said, this is about solving problems—how it is done and how it is not done. And the reason I need to use analogies is that the problems I will be referring to do not immediately lend themselves to analysis. The problems that I would like to discuss here are those of Race, Poverty and Energy in America—though my criticisms of what is happening and what is not happening could just as easily apply to many other issues.

To start with; how do you solve a problem? First you need to identify exactly what the problem is and do so in a way that also shows what the problem is not. Second, your definition needs to be one that will allow you to orient the problem relative to the prevailing conditions (ie, measuring it)—if it does not, then you need to go back to step one and try again. A definition that you cannot use to help solve the problem is (unsurprisingly) useless. You will know that your definition is a useful one when you are able to measure the size and scope of the problem with it. Thirdly, with a definition of the problem and a way to measure it, you can now consider what you would like to do to solve it. Fourthly, with a definition, means to measure and attempted solution, you are now in a position to measure your results. From here on out it is a simple process of repeating steps three and four until you have solved the problem. Or you may need to reconsider your earlier steps, perhaps the way that you are measuring needs to be revisited, perhaps your definition of the problem needs to be different. The point is: you will actually be working on a means to solve the problem, and given enough time and resources you will either solve the problem or come to the realization that the problem is (at least for the present) unsolvable.

(While I would normally like to start with something less emotional and less controversial, as it happens, this is the best place to start, so I will start here)

Race

Let us examine the problem of Race in America. As I pointed out, the first thing we need to do is have a definition of the problem. So what is the definition of the problem? And right 'out of the gate', we stumble. Is the problem one that is defined by discrimination? Or is it defined by racism? Or is the 'problem of race' something else entirely? Is it about equality? Is it about justice? Is it about conflict? To be honest, I am not sure what the definition of the problem is myself, and it seems to me that 'the problem of race' could actually be several separate problems that are connected by race. If that is the case, then each of those things needs to be defined and addressed or else it is not possible to move on. Also, in defining the problem, you will be defining the solution—not the path to the solution, but what the solution looks. So what will the 'problem of race' look like when it has been solved ? Does anyone even know? Even if it were broken into separate parts, then what would the problem of discrimination look like when it has been solved? What would racism look like when it has been solved? Or equality? Or justice? I will suggest that like any other problem of human behavior, simplistically demanding that these problems be reduced to zero is likely a bit unrealistic. But you will need a clear definition of where you are and where you would like to go before you can move to step two.

Step two is measuring the size and scope of the problem, but without a functional definition, this is impossible. How does one measure discrimination? How can you tell if the discrimination in Detroit is better or worse than Minneapolis, or Tampa? How can you measure if the racism is better or worse for people of one color than another, or if it is better in one state than another? How to you measure equality or justice? Let me be clear, I am not saying that such things cannot be measured—not at all. I am saying that you need to be able to measure whatever your definition of the problem is if you are to be able to gauge if your attempts to solve it are working. So, if you say that 'racism' is the problem, then you must find a way to measure it so that you can see if what you try as a means to a solution actually works. And if you cannot measure the problem, then let us be honest—you know that you will never solve that problem.

Obviously, once the problem is defined and measurable, then progress towards a defined solution is possible, all that is needed is a plan and action. Then, progress can be measured to see if things are moving towards the stated goal or not. So...are thing progressing towards solving the 'problem of race' in America? Clearly, this issue has been examined, and time and money have been spent in earnest for the last 50 years, and if you look at the efforts of people like Booker T Washington, then you can see that efforts go back for 150 years. So how are we doing? Are we half way to solving the problem? A tenth of the way? Does anyone even know?

To spend 50 years working on a problem and yet have no evidence to show whether they are any closer to a solution is to beg the question: Is solving this problem actually important to the people involved? I cannot answer for them, only they truly know what their motivations are. But I can point out what behavior looks like when you actually want to solve a problem and leave the conclusions up to the reader.

Poverty

Now, let's look at the problem of Poverty in America. Again we start with a definition, which seems to be easily satisfied. Depending on whether one looks at income or overall wealth, with census and other demographic data it becomes easy to define poverty in a way that is measurable. Other definitions have focused on 'opportunity' and 'education' and (as we will see shortly) while there may be merit in considering such factors, defining poverty in terms of 'opportunity' makes for a much more difficult task of measuring.

So with a definition of poverty and a means to measure it, attempts at solutions must have been simple to employ—and they have been. Money. Starting more than a half-century ago, money has been thrown in the direction of those who were measured and determined to be in poverty. Alright, so a means to a solution has been tried for a while, we must be able to measure how that is doing. Are we any nearer to the solution? Aye, there's the rub.

What the solution to Poverty in America would look like has never been properly defined. Remember? A problem and a solution must be defined at the beginning of the process, or efforts to solve the problem will result in failure. Sure, a great deal of effort and money have been applied to the problem of poverty—but towards what end? What a solution to the problem of Proverty in America would look like, is unclear. And it shows. Measurements of poverty indicate that the situation hasn't changed much in America since efforts of the government to address it began during the Great Depression.

This begs the question: is solving poverty simply unattainable or is the real goal of government efforts in this sphere something else? If the real goal is to solve poverty, the then problem and solution may need to be redefined. Perhaps examining those other definitions of poverty would lend themselves to defining a solution. But defining poverty along lines of opportunity or education is going to make measuring it more difficult and the means to try and solve it much more nuanced that the current 'more money' efforts. Also—and this becomes fairly speculative—if the real goal of the government is something other than actually solving poverty(say: placating the masses, or buying votes), the the simple means employed are just fine for those in government, because solving the problem isn't really the goal anyway.

Regardless of whether the problem needs to be defined or the means and motives of those trying to solve the problem need to be examined more closely, the irrefutable evidence it that; after a very long time of trying to 'solve the problem', it hasn't been solved. Either the definition of the problem, or the definition of a solution, or the measurements of the problem or the means to a solution must be changed—perhaps all of them need to change. But continuing to blindly apply the same means again and again will not solve poverty and for those in power to continue to do so is disingenuous.

Energy

Alright, we've seen what trying to solve poorly defined problems looks like, and we've seen what poorly defined solutions looks like and what the result of those are. Now let's look at something that is clearly define as both problem and solution and yet remains unsolved: the problem of Energy in America.

The problem of Energy in America is childishly simple to define; America is too dependent on outside sources for energy. The solution is also simple; America needs to provide most or all of its energy domestically. Measuring this is very easy, one can look at the ways that energy is consumed and point out which are produced domestically and which are produced with imported gas, coal or oil. So that's it then. We've been working on solving this since the mid-70's, we must have solved it by now, right? But no, we haven't. Three possibilities present themselves to explain this. Either there is no real need to solve the problem or there is no will to solve the problem or there is no means to solve the problem.

If it is the case that there is no real need to solve the problem of Energy in America then that immediately explains the second possibility of why the is no will to solve it. And it would bring us to asking the question: why is this a problem at all? We are told that if America was energy independent, then our economy and our government would be less influenced from the outside. In the case of the economy, the price of electricity for home and manufacturing use would be less volatile, this would also be true for oil and gas used in transportation. In the case of our government, outside influences would be much less potent and our government would not be compromised by these influences. But what if that situation isn't entirely intolerable? Then, the 'problem' evaporates. Sure, it might be nice to be energy independent, but without the energy dependence creating an intolerable consequence, it isn't really a 'problem' at all.

Here I will pause for just a moment to suggest something for those who are concerned about our government being influenced from the outside and being unnecessarily involved in foreign aggression. If it is the case that America fights 'wars for oil', then it must be asked, why? Why would America be fighting 'wars for oil' when America has huge oil and gas reserves offshore and in Alaska? IF America is truly fighting 'wars for oil', then it is clearly the fault of those who would keep America from using those oil and gas reserves. Ironically enough, if America is fighting 'wars for oil', then it is the environmentalists who are making that happen by preventing America from using it's own oil, coal and gas. (notice, I kept using the word 'if', I did so because—while the logic is sound—the conclusion is suspect, which means the assumption “America fights wars for oil” is likely false. Something to think about)

So what if energy dependence does create what most people would consider an intolerable situation, what might interfere with the will to solve the problem? Well, obviously, if those outside influences has already made successful inroads into the organization that would be working on solving the problem and if those influences (say big oil or oil-rich countries) don't like what the solution would do to them, then they might be able to get our government to 'slow things down'. Or maybe there's money to be made just looking for a means to the solution and the people who benefit are trying to drag the process out as long as they can without actually reaching the solution (Solyndra, anyone?). Either way, there are plenty of suspects to examine as to why America hasn't moved very far towards solving the problem of Energy.

Lastly, there is the question of whether the problem can be solved. If America is not going to import energy and not going to tap the vast oil and gas reserves, then energy must come from alternatives. Without going into detail, it will suffice to say that each of those alternatives has nearly intractable problems of initial costs and scaling that do make it quite possible that solving the problem of Energy in America might actually be impossible (barring an unforeseen breakthrough in technology), or at least impossible in the next 50 years.

In conclusion

So there you have it, what real problem solving looks like and (more importantly) what it does not look like. But before I leave you with the notion that all big problems are unsolvable, let me point to one that was solved: smog. In the 70's and 80's the problem of smog in America was quite serious. And that seriousness spurred people to try and solve it. The problem was defined, as was the solution. The size and scope of the problem were measured and means were tried to solve it. Progress towards the solution was measurable and once the solution was achieved, it was easy to know it. Some defined the problem of smog as one of overall air quality and efforts are still being made in that direction, but the point is this: the pressing problem of smog in America was solved and it was solved in the way that any serious effort to solve a problem must be.

I am definitely not saying that the problems of Race, Poverty or Energy in America cannot be solved. I am saying that if they are approached correctly then they most certainly can be solved. And if it turns out that they cannot be solved, then with making the correct approach to solving them, it will be known why they problem cannot be solved.

Of perhaps even greater importance than being able to effectively work at solving a problem, by being able to look at problem solving correctly, you will be able to see who is actually working to solve the problem and who is merely trying to look like they are solving the problem. And sometimes, being able spotting the rat among the corn is a step in solving the problem.

for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com

The Visions of Sister Mary--An 'Arkham Horror' story

The Visions of Sister Mary--An 'Arkham Horror' story

In light of recent events I though it best to leave a record of my previous notes on my evaluation of Sister Mary and what happened just after my evaluation. I shall be leaving my post here at Arkham Asylum and whichever member of the staff is assigned my duties ought to be fully informed. Though exactly what I am informing that person of, even I cannot say, and I was here.

Even though the days leading up to my actual involvement with Sister Mary were rather sensational with wild rumors, police-enforced curfews and a sudden surge in patients both here at the sanatorium and at the general hospital, it was on the morning of April 28^th, 1922, that I interviewed my first witness to the insanity that seemed to hold Arkham in it's grip.

Sister Mary was admitted early on the morning of the 27^th, though I cannot say by whom. I have thoroughly questioned the orderlies on staff and none of them can recall seeing her brought in, even though such an occurrence should be impossible as we keep the door between the general waiting area and the consultation room locked. Yet, it cannot be denied that she was first discovered in the consultation room, in a state of disheveled disarray, asleep on the couch.

Dr. Haskins was on duty at the time and had a impromptu consultation with Sister Mary—which I suspect was as much to learn how she gained entry to the Asylum as much as to calm her out of her agitated state. I only have his comments made to me in private to record here as Dr. Haskins destroyed his notes a few days later, but what he told me was that Sister Mary claimed to have been overwhelmed by a confrontation with some creature that had descended from the skies above Arkham and attacked her in the Rivertown Streets after having left the graveyard near there. Dr. Haskins checked her for signs of alcohol abuse but indicated to me that Sister Mary seemed of sound body, despite her obvious hallucinations. Finding nothing that he could use as evidence to commit her, he scheduled an emergency consultation for the next day with Sister Mary and let her go on her own recognizance.

I was called at home as my colleague was absent from her post—a matter that I shall revisit before concluding this narrative, and asked if I could come in on the morning of the 28^th to consult with Sister Mary. Dr. Haskins had a busy schedule and would be administering electro-shock therapy to another patient, who coincidentally enough also claimed to have seen a monster in the skies above Arkham.

When I arrived, I found Sister Mary eager to talk about her recent experiences, particularly what had happened in the graveyard and the Rivertown Streets. Not surprisingly, she claimed to have exorcised a ghost who had returned from the afterlife and was haunting the area. I will spare anyone reading this the details of the encounter she described, but it was about what one would expect such a tale to be.

The real interest in Sister Mary's case begins with what she described in the Rivertown Streets. There she said she came upon some kind of beast and what she called 'a cultist'. I had serious doubts about Dr. Haskins decision to release Sister Mary the previous day, as what she described to me might have been a hallucination-induced murder. Further questioning lead me to conclude that the entire incident was a hallucinatory episode brought on by... I don't know what. No person, cultist or not, could have done what Sister Mary described and every test that I could administer indicated that she was of sound mind and in full control of her faculties. There was simply no possibility that she was recalling an encounter with an actual person.

Her other hallucinations were, though described in vivid detail, clearly things that –like the cultist-- had never existed outside of Sister Mary's own mind. But what had caused these particular subjects? What would cause an otherwise sane woman to thing that a twelve-foot tall monster, with a human-like body and a head like a squid would be wandering the streets of Rivertown? I think I understand why she would think that holy water would defeat such a monster—being that she served in the only Catholic Church in all of Arkham, but what she described was hardly the typical descriptions of demons that we hear. I've only heard of a creature such as she described from our more severely disturbed patients after certain nights of the year.

And what would cause her to think that a winged creature that was part-insect and part-crustacean would dive down from the Arkham night and confront her? She explained that she had no holy water left, and had to rely on the revolver that a friend had loaned her—an item that I sincerely hope was not loaded. But she insisted that she had shot the nightmare dead in the streets where it landed, though I can say that later investigations but the authorities failed to find any evidence. I suppose it is worth mentioning that the authorities only checked on May 3^rd, which was a couple of days after the events of May 1^st, but I am getting ahead of myself.

The final hallucination, and the one that she claims was too much for her, was that of a gigantic floating nightmare that Sister Mary described as a writhing and hovering mass of bubbling gelatin, like enormous cow intestines that where alternatively convulsing and expanding and with terrible mouth's set unevenly along the elongated body of the beast. She said that she fainted just as the creature seemed to move towards her with open mouths—though with no eyes, she commented that she couldn't see how it knew she was even there. In all honestly, Sister Mary's description was so vivid and so detailed that I want to go and check for myself and see if there were any traces of what drooled from the creature's mouths, but of course, such a venture would be foolish. After all, it could only have been a hallucination. Besides, even if it had not been, no trace would have remained after May 1^st , but of course, it was just the imaginings of a stressed mind.

Try as I might, I could not uncover the real source of the stress that brought on Sister Mary's breakdown. She spoke of portals to other worlds—strange worlds—that had appeared all over Arkham and how she and a few others had been working to understand them and stop the monsters from coming through. She mentioned a drifter, and local professor visit Arkham University and Dr. Carolyn Fern. At the mention of Dr. Fern, I began to understand. Carolyn had always had an interest in the stranger patients that we had received and had detailed notes on their various hallucination, phobias and dementia. Sister Mary must be one of her contacts who had not yet fully succumbed to insanity. I consider it unprofessional that Dr. Fern does not take more precautions to prevent a person's psychoses from going too far.

With her bill for the consultation paid in full, Sister Mary took her leave of me, indicating that she needed to meet up with her friends and continue the fight against what she called 'The Lord of the Winds', Yetturiel, or as the indians called it, Ithaqua. Later, Dr. Fern would tell me that he was known to the natives of the Americas as a beast that roams the great northern waste, and takes lone people from where he finds them in the wilderness to accompany him as he rides the winds of the universe. Seldom are such people ever seen or found, but according to the legend, they are sometimes found frozen solid—even in the middle of summer. And always as if they had fallen from a great height. Normally I would dismiss such a legend, but after the events of the first of May, I'm not so sure.

I didn't see Sister Mary for many months after she left the Asylum, but when I did, she didn't speak of anything other than her work at the soup kitchen with their new cook, a drifter who the called Ashcan Pete who had decided to stay in Arkham for a while. I didn't see Sister Mary, but I did hear more about the hallucinations that she had described to me. Other people had also reported seeing the awful flying nightmare she had described, and things had gotten so bad that the general store had closed up shop while the proprietor went 'on vacation'.

It was on the evening of April 30^th that things seemed to culminate. I heard of people seeing strange things everywhere and that night I decided to stay in the heavy brick Asylum rather than venture the streets to my home. That decision may have saved my life.

It was at about 11PM that a sudden wind came up through the town of Arkham, a wind that grew in strength until it reached hurricane proportions. Sometime before midnight the power went out and the inmates seemed to go mad. While the orderlies had their hands full I watched out the solid barred windows of the Asylum as the winds tore through the streets, knocking over power lines and tearing up trees. I though for a moment I saw Dr. Fern move down the street in front of the building looking up at the sky, but that was impossible and I knew it—no person could have survived in those winds.

It must have been sometime around midnight when the temperature began to drop precipitously as the winds continued to lash the town. Later, I would find that my house had been torn from its foundation like so many others. Over dinner with a friend of Carolyn's I heard such a tale and to not know whether Mr. Monterey Jack (if that even is his real name) was putting me on, or had put away too many beers. But either way, here is what he claimed happened in the wee hours of the first of May:

Mr. Jack told me that it was indeed the ancient spirit of the winds, Ithaqua, who had come to Arkham. He said that he faced the demon-prince with his bare hands (his tommy-gun having been torn from those same hands but the hurricane force gales). He said that his three friends were there also—who I have already named earlier—and that together, in the face of the icy winds that were hurled at them that they faced down the demon-prince (or as Carolyn calls them: the 'Great Old Ones') and that they won.

I don't know what to believe, but I know what I know. And what I know is that some insanity, so terror, had gripped Arkham in the days leading up to that night. I know that without warning or explanation and hurricane appeared over Arkham and Arkham alone. And I know that in the morning, though terrible devastation remained, the madness was gone.

I don't know whether some collective hallucination had threatened to drive the entire town mad, and if maybe that psychosis had enough psychic energy to become real for a while and exhaust itself in a dreadful storm. I don't know if maybe Sister Mary had been telling me not of hallucinations, but of the God's Honest Truth and that she stood with three others against an ancient terror that had threatened to destroy us all—and won. I don't know.

But I do know that we are still here. And if, from time to time, Sister Mary asks us to pray to protect the world from evil, where's the harm in that?

for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com

Impasse

Impasse

“There will be no arrangement.”

“Well, if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.”

In this country, at present, we have an utterly non-functional Federal government, deadlocked states and a culture that is so divided by discord and distrust that every endeavor which requires a measure of cooperation in order to work has ground to a halt. While the discord is deep and the two sides (I shall be referring to 'liberals' and 'conservatives' though there are many names for them) are reluctant to seek any compromise, it is the distrust that is making any effort to work together into an impossibility.

The examples of the impasses that confront us today are legion, but I shall briefly examine three: Guns, Race and Government.

Guns

The debate rages anew over guns, but as Jon Stewart correctly points out, 'nothing will happen.' At least nothing about restricting guns will happen and I presume that is all he cares about. Gun control advocates had made tremendous gains in the last century, only to see most of those gains rolled back. Why? Because the gun control message was a lie. First was the lie that 'guns make everyone less safe' and this lie is still being pushed by some. The second is that 'they only want to get rid of the very worst guns' and, again, some still push that lie by promoting things like magazine limits (never mind that initial reports indicate the latest shooter reloaded 5 times while cowardly murdering innocent people in cold blood—what's to have stopped him reloading 20 times?), but mostly the gun control people have given up on this lie too.

The truth is that the people who the gun control advocates needed to trick into giving up their firearms have become all too well aware of these lies. It is clear that violent crime takes place where there are victims, and that 'gun free zones' (be the homes, cities or churches) are really 'victim zones'. It is unsurprising that people don't really like the idea of being a victim (well, some do, but that is a different conversation). And the truth is that gun control advocates don't just want to get rid of 'the worst guns' (whatever those are), they want to get rid of all guns (apart from government and private security..... and criminals). And people are wise to the idea that gun control advocates will lock down whatever gains they get this time around and then come back for more...and more...and more.

People have seen what happens in the places that severely limit civilian access to guns, those are places of oppression—either by criminals or by governments. They can see for themselves what happened in Britain after guns were removed (crime has gone up) and they can see what happened in Canada when 'certain' guns were banned, but not others (the RCMP arbitrarily added more firearms to the list of banned guns and started taking those guns too). Everyone can see that the real goal of gun control is to have everyone (who obeys the law) completely disarmed and so the effort to expand gun control is not trusted. The solution for this would be for the gun control people to show some good faith and actually not have tried to incrementally ban all firearms (a little too late for that) or for them to abandon their appeal to emotion (why else would the want to ban millions of semi-automatic rifles?) and focus of the guns and the people who do the most harm—both of which are found in urban areas. But since they will not actually do that and continue (suspiciously, IMO) to try and take firearms from the hands of law abiding people, and since those people those people have largely gotten wise to this and have no trust for the gun control advocates, we are at an impasse.

Race

It seems that everyone is saying that we need to have a conversation 'about race' in America. And when a lot of Americans balk at having such a conversation, the accusation is that those people just don't want to talk about it. I don't think that is true, but I can only really speak for myself, so here goes. Before I can be a part of a conversation about anything, I need to know what I am doing there, what is the purpose of the conversation, what is my purpose in being there. As someone who happens to have what would be called white colored skin, I have not seen anyplace where whatever I might have to say is invited. But the problem with this particular situation goes much deeper than that.

Unless I am mistaken, just because of how I look, there is an unspoken accusation that I am a racist. I can deal with that on it's own, but when I am asked to 'be part of a conversation' then I need to ask, “Do you think I am racist?”. Because if you do, then what is the point of asking me to be part of the conversation? (Other than to have me be abused, which I will decline) So the problem that a lot of people have is, is that they need to know how they can prove that they are not racists. Is it enough --if a person hasn't said or done anything racist, if that person doesn't hang out with racists and doesn't defend racists points of view-- is that enough to satisfy of those who seem to be questioning whether he or she is a racists? Nicholas Kristof makes a living promoting (at least in part) this notion of racism without racists, which is utter nonsense. Dylan Roof was a racist. People who share his view are racists. How would Mr. Kristof, himself, prove that he is not a racist in this climate?

The way out is obvious. People who want to have a conversation about race need to grant to everyone that the label of 'racist' will not be applied to unless that person has expressed a view (such as Roof clearly did) or done something to someone else based solely on the other person's race. But as Booker T Washington said over a century ago, there are a lot of people invested in keeping the this tension and animosity alive. A lot of people who make money off of it. And those people will aggressively sabotage any efforts to create a climate where people who have not said or done anything overt are called 'racists'. And without it being clear that the label of 'racist' will not being inappropriately applied, there won't be a 'conversation' because (unsurprisingly) no one wants to accept an invitation to be abused. And without being able to trust that one side won't abuse the other, we are at an impasse.

Government

Some people want government to spent more money, some what it to spend less. Although, since we don't actually pass budgets (at least at the Federal level) anymore, this point might be moot. These two sides have struggled and will go on struggling, but what is it really about, why can't the two sides agree or even compromise?

On the one side are the people who want government to spend less, but that is not quite right. They don't just want the government to spend less, they want the government to do less. They want the government to do those few things that it must do and just leave the rest. Either leave the rest to the states (who, in turn, would leave some of the rest to the counties) or leave the rest to the people to do –or not do-- as they see fit (either individually, through private charities or through businesses).

These people have the notion that just because some people have an idea that they would like to see done, that doesn't automatically make it the responsibility of government to take up their goals and aspirations and use its power to fulfill them. So, it isn't just that these people want only to see the government spend less, it is that they have an idea of what should be done (and thus funded) and currently government happens to be far above that level.

On the other side are the people who want government to spend more, but how much more? Aye, there's the rub. They never really say. While the people who want government to spend less could indicate where they think funding should stay at, the people who want government to fund more never can say where they would like to see it stop. Would they just want another 10 percent and then that would be it? 50 percent more? 90 percent? Who knows, they have never indicated where their final position would be or what such a government would look like.

Aside from the suspicion that such a situation engenders, there is another more basic problem of with trust. And that is found in recent history. A look back will show that when the people who wanted government to spend more made agreements that after they got the debt limit increases they wanted they would cut spending, they went back on their word and didn't cut spending. So when such people grandstand and say that 'for every dollar the debt limit is increased, we will cut ten dollars in spending' and that deal is rejected, they should not be surprised (and I don't believe they actually are), for they cannot be trusted to keep their word. So when this history of bad faith is coupled with the ideological problem of no limit, there is a real problem of not being able to agree. Now, the solution is obvious, just as people who want the government to spend less can articulate what they would like to see as a final picture (even if they know they will never get there, at least they can say where they are going), people who want government to spend more need to articulate what their ultimate goal would look like. They need to be able to articulate where they want to go with government and government spending (do they even know?). And likewise, if they are promising to 'cut spending' in order to get a debt limit increase, let them make the cuts first. But they won't – do either of those two things. And without that, there can be no trust and so, again, we are at an impasse.

In the end, there are only two ways to resolve any impasse, either the two sides will need to earnestly seek a sliver of common ground and a modicum of trust so that they can work together or one side will have to be more clever and trick the other. I wonder which it will be?

for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com